NHS Hospital Treatment: Overseas Visitors

Baroness Boothroyd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action is being taken to recover the amount owing to the National Health Service by overseas visitors, known as National Health Service tourists, who have unlawfully obtained free medical treatment.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 place a duty on NHS trusts to establish whether a patient is eligible for free NHS hospital treatment and, if not, to levy a charge for any treatment provided. The Government are consulting on proposals to strengthen the charging regulations.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the concern in the National Health Service at the amount owed to it by illegal overseas patients? Can he give an indication of that debt and say how much has been recovered by overseas patient officers and debt collectors? Am I to understand that we can look forward to new regulations that may well be brought in to help to tighten up what can only be described as exploitation of the National Health Service?

Lord Warner: My Lords, under this and the previous government, it has been down to local hospitals to collect charges in accordance with the regulations. We do not collect information on the issue at the centre. As the House knows, devolution is the world that we live in, and we do not want to increase bureaucratic demands on the frontline National Health Service.
	In 2001–02, £1.2 million was written off by local health trusts for uncollected debts in the area. However, it is not possible to qualify the total costs that may be lost.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, as a former member of a hospital trust board, I am astonished that that important information is not among the millions of pieces of information that the board must yield to the central authorities. How did that oversight occur? Do the Government intend to use a future policy on identity cards to check whether people are liable to pay for healthcare? If so, what sort of identity card are we talking about—the Home Secretary's or the Foreign Secretary's?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, the Cabinet is still discussing the matter. It would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that discussion.

Earl Howe: My Lords, what methods are currently in place in the NHS for checking someone's entitlement to free NHS services?

Lord Warner: My Lords, where there are concerns about whether someone is required to pay charges in those circumstances, the usual arrangement is that an overseas visitor manager will arbitrate, taking account of the requirements in the charging regulations.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, who decides whether there is such a concern about someone who comes to a hospital? Surely, that is a difficult task, since some overseas visitors speak extremely good English. Who is responsible for deciding whether a person should have healthcare?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I thought I made clear, under the charging regulations it is down to the local hospital. I have explained the local system to the noble Earl.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how much money do we owe French and other authorities for treatment in those countries?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I have no idea, but I will be happy to inquire and to write to the noble Lord.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, if overseas visitors come to this country without any intention of seeking medical care but happen to fall ill during their visit, they are entitled to the services of the National Health Service? We are referring to those who come specifically for medical treatment and who must carry the cost of that treatment.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for expressing that point of view. We have made clear all along to the NHS that urgent treatment needed to save life or to prevent a condition becoming immediately life-threatening should not be withheld. The NHS remains a humanitarian service.

Carbon Management Strategy

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider that the United Kingdom should develop a long-term carbon management strategy, including fossil fuels, as recommended in the report of the Department of Trade and Industry technology service mission to the United States and Canada.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government's energy White Paper provides a long-term strategy for the reduction of carbon emissions in line with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Protection for a 60 per cent reduction by 2050. Fossil fuels are recognised as an important part of the energy mix in the strategy. My department is currently considering the development of a carbon abatement technologies programme for fossil fuel power generation. We will develop that new programme with the full involvement of UK industry.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that fairly encouraging response. Nevertheless, has the Government's record so far in carrying out a carbon management strategy not been somewhat patchy? They have given substantial support to certain renewables, notably wind power, but less support to other means of dealing with carbon emissions, such as the recovery and treatment of methane from coal mines, combined heat and power including micropower, in which I declare an interest, and clean coal technology with carbon extraction.
	Is the noble Lord aware that, according to the mission's report, in North America, the clean use of fossil fuels, notably coal, is regarded as a key component in developing a sustainable energy future, and a number of clean coal technology plants already operate or are under construction there? When can we expect such plants to operate in the UK?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have what is, in effect, a carbon management strategy with different parts. Part deals with the renewables obligation and other parts are appropriately best dealt with by research. Research is taking place on areas such as carbon capture and storage, renewables and, as I said, we are developing a carbon abatement technologies strategy that will cover such things as carbon capture and storage, co-firing of fossil fuel with biomass and higher power plant efficiency.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, clearly we must have a carbon management strategy for the long term. The Minister appears to be satisfied with his own strategy, but what about that of China and other developing nations?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I was recently in China discussing this matter. This is a huge opportunity for British industry, which has good experience of clean coal technology, to sell into a huge market that is now very keen to deal with its environmental problems. China is keen to get clean coal technology because of its large quantities of coal.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in the past, nature has provided the necessary balance between the amounts of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere and being taken out of it. Are not today's practices upsetting that balance, especially in industrial and urban areas?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is clearly the case. That is why the energy White Paper went into the question of dealing with the problems of climate change in such length. We have a major programme to increase renewables precisely to deal with this type of problem.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government have an aspirational target of 20 per cent of energy to be produced by renewables by 2020. Will the Minister recognise that, by that time, all but one of the nuclear power stations will have closed, so the net gain will be nil?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the nuclear plants last slightly longer than that, but we have already said that we will keep the nuclear option open in case we cannot, by the means that we have set out, achieve the targets that we believe to be very important.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, this country used to be at the leading edge of clean coal technology. What has happened to the research programme on that technology? Has it been maintained?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the clean coal technology programme has been maintained. There will be another call this year for programmes within that framework so that we continue to maintain our position in that technology.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned the work on clean coal technology in the United States. Is not one of the problems that arose with nuclear energy that we engaged in too many types of nuclear plant instead of learning from existing proven technologies? Why are we not doing more research in this area? Why are we not using clean coal technologies that have been developed in the United States to make quicker progress?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we looked at the whole question of clean coal technology plant review and whether there should be a demonstration project. That was part of the clean coal technology demonstration project that published its report in 2001. We found that most of the commercially available technologies had already been fully demonstrated and that there was little support for major demonstration projects so far as the industry was concerned. As we go forward with some of these technologies, international co-operation with the United States, Canada or the EU is a sensible and important proposition.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister explain how the Government will manage to keep the nuclear option open when the skills have been run down, the technology has been in decline for a long time and the research effort is almost nil?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not sure that any of those points is correct. A considerable amount of training is still going on. Research continues and we take part in research projects on an international basis. The foundations are there, so if we brought the nuclear option back in due course it would need to be ramped up very quickly. Nevertheless, it could be done.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, coal mines are still being closed. Would it not be better for the Government to give more support to the clean coal industry and try to maintain a reasonable output from British coal mines before the whole industry disappears?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, we are keeping the clean coal technology programme going. However, the industry's main problem is not that but the fact that today it is very easy to import coal from much cheaper sources from around the world. However, we are keeping that technology programme going and we are about to have a carbon abatement technology strategy. That is on a slightly wider basis, but will help to deal with the problem.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister and his colleagues regularly refer to keeping the nuclear option open, as does the White Paper. However, since it takes about 15 years from decision to operation, when will they come off the fence?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have said that we will keep the decision under review. If it appears that we cannot meet our targets with renewables, we will open that option again.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, how can we keep the nuclear option open, if we do not make a decision on the management of nuclear waste?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the whole question of how we deal with nuclear waste is subject, at the moment, to consultation. That is as it should be. If we are to make progress, we must get consensus on the best way of doing it.

Faith Communities

Lord Peston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why a committee has been set up to consult "faith communities" on policy making, while non-religious people are not similarly consulted.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government have a manifesto commitment to review the ways in which they consult the faith communities. The time-limited steering group taking that forward is identifying the most effective ways for departments to involve faith communities in developing and implementing policy, where appropriate. It is not itself a mechanism for consultation. Bodies representing non-believers, such as the British Humanist Association, are frequently consulted on policy. That will continue to be the case.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I must extend the usual courtesy to my noble friend and thank her for that Answer, but I cannot see any connection between it and the Question. I wish noble Lords to know what precisely there is about the nature of these religious groups and public policy itself that makes the Government think that the two should be conjoined. What is there about secular views that makes it appropriate not to have any formal mechanism for taking them into account in the same way? Why are the two being treated differently?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am disappointed that my Answer did not find favour with my noble friend. He will know that 76.8 per cent of the United Kingdom's population regard themselves as having some religious affiliation.
	For many people, their faith determines the way in which they conduct their life and the values that they hold. By consulting faith groups, the Government can ensure that all the issues raised by different faith communities are given full consideration in the development of policy. As I said, the review is not inviting consultation on policy issues but is seeking to discover better ways of consulting those who have faith.
	I can reassure my noble friend that Fiona Mactaggart is holding meetings with secularists and humanists separately to discuss the review and other policy issues. She met the National Secular Society on 24th September and will meet the British Humanist Association on 20th November.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, given that 76 per cent of people have deeply held religious views, which one must respect, would it not be easier just to include the other 24 per cent and call it an election?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have already had one of those, and it was entirely successful for the Government.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is very difficult to find out—from the Home Office website or otherwise—the names of the members of the committee that advises Miss Mactaggart? Having discovered who they are, I ask the noble Baroness whether she is satisfied that they are truly representative of the faiths in this community. Many people believe that, if we are going to conduct such an exercise, it should be based on the widest possible consultation. The members seem to have been chosen from a rather narrow range of beliefs.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not agree that they have been chosen from a narrow range. The point is that, regrettably, the faith communities have not been as good as many other groups at making their views known. Some do not have a proper method of consulting. We hope that, by having the steering group, we will be able to understand better what we need to do to make sure that they can make a full consultation.
	The noble Lord will know that many faith groups deliver on-the-ground services to many people in our community. Understanding what they do and how they do it, so that we can help, is rather important.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people with a secular outlook have, nevertheless, a strong social commitment? We care very much about what happens to our fellow citizens. I speak as vice-president of the British Humanist Association. It seems to me that we are not consulted in the same way as faith organisations, and we ought to be. We represent a large number of people, and we have a great deal to contribute.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree that many people who have secular views have much to contribute and do contribute. We have taken every opportunity to consult. Secular and humanist societies are consulted on many occasions by most departments. We do not think that we are detracting in any way from that. We are trying to deepen and enhance the opportunities for people to come together to do a bit of good.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is it not a fact acknowledged by the Government and the Opposition that the faith communities play an important role in tackling social challenges? Often, they find themselves on their own. Is the Minister aware that their basis of faith is often the reason for their exclusion from public funding? Will she look into the issue of the poor access to funding from which some faith-based charities suffer? The matter might be considered as part of the current review of the Government's interface with faith communities.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I agree that faith communities can have an important role in helping to tackle social issues, as do many other groups. That is important.
	I cannot say that I agree with the noble Lord that such groups are excluded improperly from assistance, but I shall inquire into the matter and write to him about what is available.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, after all the rhetoric about moving towards a post-Christian society to which we were subjected in the latter decades of the 20th century, over 70 per cent of the population of England and Wales—over 80 per cent in Cheshire and the North West—declared themselves to be Christian. To that must be added the other faith communities. Does the Minister agree that the need to consult the faith communities is one of the key priorities of the 21st century? World events have demonstrated that, if we can achieve peace between religions, we are well on the way to achieving aspects of world peace.
	In saying that, however, I must emphasise that, in no way do we want the consultation to be exclusive. It must be part of the full range of consultation with bodies in society. However, no one should underestimate the importance of consultation with faith communities.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have tried to make it clear that we think that it is important to consult all groups. The review seeks better ways of consulting the faith communities. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that that is of importance.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, many faiths ascribe a lower status to their female adherents. What are the Government doing to offset such bias? Secondly, how is it that the Chief Rabbi has been selected to represent Jewry, when he cannot speak for liberal or reform Jewry?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in the review, we do not seek to get involved in the differences within religions. As your Lordships will know, we have laws on gender bias that apply to everyone, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity. The views of liberal Jewry are, in fact, represented.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us how the 70-odd per cent of religious people in this country are split? The Bishops might be interested in that.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly write to the noble Lord. All I can do is affirm—with some pleasure, I confess—that 76.8 per cent regard themselves as having some religious affiliation.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that liberal views are represented. But is she aware that if one looks at the list of those in this curious group, only the Chief Rabbi is listed? Therefore, reform Jews, liberal Jews and secular Jews like myself are not represented on the committee and would strongly resent the idea that the Chief Rabbi spoke on our behalf on matters of government policy.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this group is not speaking about policy matters in relation to government policy. The group is seeking to find better ways of consulting faith communities. The group is not involved directly in consultation on government policy at the moment. Your Lordships will also know that there are other advisers to the steering group who can make appropriate inputs in relation to broader issues. I absolutely take what the noble Lord says; namely, that there is a broad spectrum. Liberal Jews are indeed represented on the panel of advisers.

European Union: Defence and Security Co-operation

Lord King of Bridgwater: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What recent changes they have made in their policy towards the proposal for structured defence and security co-operation between European Union member states.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, government policy remains unchanged. Nothing whatever must put at risk our essential defence guarantees in NATO. As agreed at the European Council of Nice in 2000, NATO remains the basis for collective defence of its members. Operationally, we are open to ideas on how to strengthen the European Union's capacity for action, provided such ideas are consistent with our principles. We have concerns about some of the proposals currently before the IGC—concerns shared by many partners. We shall continue to advance our position vigorously.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opening sentence in which she made clear the Government's absolute commitment to the NATO alliance, and the clarity with which she gave it. Perhaps I may say that that sentiment will be shared by all Members of the House. Is it not clear that if there are new ideas for defence circulating in Europe, they should be the subject of the closest consultation with the United States; not least because of the considerable sensitivity over events in Iraq between the United States and many countries in Europe at present?
	Is it not clear that the statement by the US ambassador to NATO, Mr Nicholas Burns, suggested that the EU proposal represented the greatest danger to the trans-Atlantic alliance? It is clear that that consultation has not proceeded as it should. Will the Minister further recognise that there are elements in the United States that would be doubtful about the value of the NATO alliance and may see in the present disturbances an opportunity to press their case? In those circumstances, there is a need for absolute clarity by the British Government to make clear their position so that there is no uncertainty as to the strength of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have made clear to the whole House that the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to NATO is undiminished and as strong as ever. I have also made clear that some of the concerns we have about current proposals before the IGC are shared with quite a number of our European Union colleagues.
	In relation to consultations with the United States, I noticed in your Lordships' discussion on this matter on Monday that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, raised the matter. I am bound to say that I am told that the US ambassador was quoted out of context in his interview with Radio Free Europe. He said:
	"The UK is the closest ally of the United States and we have a perfect understanding of each other and we are working closely together and there are no problems between the US and the UK on this issue".
	I hope that that assurance allays some of the noble Lord's concerns.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, in working towards a common defence policy—as agreed in the Maastricht Treaty—does my noble friend agree that there are considerable savings to be made on behalf of the British taxpayer by avoiding unnecessary duplication of resources for our Armed Forces and the lack of interoperability that now exists between those same forces?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, I agree that the genesis of this came from the Maastricht Treaty. However, I would point out to my noble friend that it is considerably clarified by the Amsterdam Treaty. He is entirely right that our policy must be aimed at avoiding any unnecessary duplication, provided—I stress the point again—it does not undermine our policy as regards NATO. Of course, such organisations as OCCAR are designed to ensure that there is no duplication of effort. It is important that the European Union pulls its weight on defence matters.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister agree that since the late 1950s the United States has pushed for stronger European co-operation in NATO, but every time the Europeans move towards stronger European co-operation in NATO, there are those in Washington who get terribly anxious and begin to protest? What the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, described accurately as an outburst from the US ambassador represents, yet again, that semi-contradictory approach. Does she admit that the Western European Union (WEU) was a perfect example of structured co-operation among members of the European Union and that, now that the WEU has been merged into the European Union, it would not be inappropriate for that kind of thing to continue?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I made it clear that there is a view that the United States ambassador was quoted out of context. I understand that the guidance from the State Department is still supportive of ESDP. It is important for your Lordships to realise that. On the question of the WEU, we must ensure that there is no duplication with the NATO commitment and that the European Union's capabilities are strengthened in an operational sense so that we are able to deploy, as we did through a national headquarters, for the Petersberg tasks in the Congo.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in the light of the noble Baroness's first reply to my noble friend Lord King, can she assure the House that the three articles introducing a common defence guarantee and an inner defence corps will be excised from the final treaty text as they clearly create an unnecessary rival to NATO?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unable to give specific guarantees about specific clauses at this point. However, in relation to the IGC, we have two concerns. First, we do not agree that any treaty should allow those who are in the initial structured co-operation group to decide who joins structured co-operation arrangements. Secondly, the draft treaty implies that a small group of EU countries could set up a small defence collective for the purposes of neutral defence. That would cut across NATO and in its current form it is unacceptable.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I should like to point out to the Minister, if we have time—

Noble Lords: Time!

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is sufficient time for the noble Lord to ask his question.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House. While the Minister said that the US ambassador's remarks were quoted out of context, the Minister is aware that there were exchanges in NATO and that the American ambassador called specifically for an emergency meeting of ambassadors to discuss the matter. That does not sound to me as though that was entirely out of context. Does the Minister agree that it is vitally important that the United Kingdom, as a key ally of the United States, is absolutely clear where it stands on this issue? When the Americans ask for consultation, it is not sufficient to allow the French to say that it is none of the United States' business.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that nothing I said detracted from that point. I was merely making a point about a specific quote mentioned in your Lordships' House on Monday, which may have caused a number of your Lordships some alarm. Our ambassador to NATO has made the UK's position clear; it is a position shared by other partners. We will not support anything which undermines NATO. Any treaty change would have to be based on a unanimous vote. Therefore, if we do not agree, it simply cannot happen.

Northern Ireland

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
	"I should like to make a Statement about political developments in Northern Ireland. The House will be aware that yesterday, although a day of great progress, ended in disappointment. We had high hopes that a sequence of actions involving political parties, the IRA, the Independent International Commission for Decommissioning and the governments would result in a positive new atmosphere of trust at the beginning of the election campaign.
	"I believe that we were close to achieving that result. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach devoted much effort to the task both yesterday and in the preceding weeks. But the significant feature of this recent phase of the process was the direct engagement between the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party and of Sinn Fein.
	"These discussions and related developments have, in my view, brought us a good deal further than the position we reached in April. Let us be clear what has now been achieved.
	"First, we have concluded that an election should now be held in Northern Ireland. The date, Wednesday, 26th November, was announced yesterday.
	"Secondly, we have an important statement from the leader of Sinn Fein which was endorsed by the IRA. When Mr Adams says that there will be full and final closure of the conflict and his remarks are endorsed by the IRA, I regard that as a significant and welcome step forward.
	"Thirdly, with the Irish Government, we have established the Independent Monitoring Commission to ensure that the promise of the full and final closure of the conflict is a reality.
	"Fourthly, the IRA authorised its representatives to re-engage with the IICD with a view to putting arms beyond use at the earliest opportunity.
	"Fifthly, there was an important act of decommissioning about which General de Chastelain reported to the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. He confirmed that the arms dealt with included light, medium and heavy ordnance and associated munitions, and that the quantity involved was considerably larger than that dealt with in the previous event. His colleague, Mr Andrew Sens, made the point that the material involved could have caused death or destruction on a huge scale if it had been used.
	"It is, of course, a matter of great disappointment that the IICD, constrained by the confidentiality insisted upon by the IRA, was unable to report all this in a manner sufficiently detailed to enable the right honourable Member for Upper Bann to make a positive statement about his party's willingness to re-enter a devolved administration following an election. He did, however, say that there were good things in Mr Adams's speech which were encouraging.
	"The two governments have made clear in the Joint Declaration that arms need to be put beyond use in a manner that is conducive to creating public confidence. This has not so far been achieved.
	"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated at Hillsborough yesterday, we shall continue to try to find a way through this difficulty. Further discussions between the parties are obviously essential. The IICD will need to be involved and the British and Irish Governments will do all they can to resolve this problem quickly.
	"In the mean time, the necessary legal steps need to be taken so that the election announced yesterday can take place. Accordingly, I have made an order to enable fresh elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly to be held on Wednesday, 26th November.
	"I have also made an associated order to defer the publication of the new electoral register due on 1st December because the necessary work cannot be carried out during preparations for an election. And I am putting forward a further order permitting the Electoral Commission access to polling stations.
	"I cannot hide my disappointment at yesterday's turn of events. I hope and believe that agreement can be reached so that the comprehensive acts of completion which the Prime Minister called for last October can be achieved, and we can move towards a stable, devolved government in Northern Ireland.
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. Members on this side of the House are also very disappointed at the outcome of yesterday.
	I agree with the noble Baroness that things have certainly moved forward over recent weeks in the attempts to maintain the momentum of the Belfast agreement, and we support the Government's decision to hold elections. However, I must ask the noble Baroness a few questions as to how yesterday ended in such a complete shambles.
	First, did the Prime Minister or anyone else know that General de Chastelain had been confined to strict confidentiality by the IRA as to what he could reveal before he went public? Secondly, had the Government not verified with Mr Adams and Mr Trimble exactly what each thought the deal was, and as it is the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach who have made clear in the Joint Declaration the need for "creating public confidence", had they not assured themselves that sufficient had been delivered and in such a way as to achieve that objective? If not, does the noble Baroness agree that to have run the government spin machine, seriously over-hyped the possible outcome of yesterday's events and brought the Prime Minister almost from his sick bed, was a huge mistake?
	Furthermore, does she agree that the over-spinning of the outcome could have been misinterpreted by republicans as triumphalism on the part of the Government—hence having a negative effect on the process?
	The noble Baroness spoke about a number of positive developments that have taken place, such as the speech made yesterday by Mr Adams, subsequently endorsed, as we understand and the noble Baroness has just confirmed, by the IRA. The Prime Minister said earlier today that Mr Adams's speech satisfied his demand—made in April—that all IRA paramilitary activity would end and that the IRA would cease to exist as an effective paramilitary force. Perhaps for the record and for the sake of clarity, the noble Baroness will tell the House exactly where in Mr Adams's speech this has been stated in those terms.
	Moreover, if it is the Government's belief that the speech made by Mr Adams means that paramilitary activity will end, why can Mr Adams still not bring himself to use precisely those words?
	Another development to which the noble Baroness referred was the third act of IRA decommissioning that took place yesterday, as witnessed by General de Chastelain. Obviously we welcome that act in so far as we know what it actually entails. But do not the events following the general's statement yesterday afternoon underline the need for a much greater transparency on the whole issue of decommissioning, and on whether the so-called war is over?
	I shall quote from what my leader Iain Duncan Smith said to the Prime Minister today in another place:
	"Last night, the media reported that British officials had spoken in briefings about the kinds of weapons that had been decommissioned. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that if the people of Northern Ireland knew what he knew, they would be satisfied".
	Surely the time has come to end the secrecy over this act of decommissioning and put the full details into the public domain so that the people of Northern Ireland can judge for themselves what has been done.
	Surely there is now an urgent need for the Government to give us the details of what has been agreed about an ongoing process of decommissioning that will lead to all illegal weapons finally being put beyond use. Only then will the necessary trust and confidence be established so that, once the elections are out of the way, there is a chance of reforming the executive and of moving this process to the successful conclusion that we all want.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. Yesterday marked a disappointing but hardly surprising turn of events. At least there is now to be an election for a new Assembly which noble Lords on these Benches have been calling for long since. I correctly forecast last October that the suspension of the Assembly was likely to be very prolonged. In May and June I argued that a new Assembly be elected so that negotiations about the formation of a new executive could take place between the pro-agreement parties within the Assembly whose mandates would have been renewed. That, six months later, is what will now happen.
	In pursuing the course of actions adopted, the Government wasted six months. But worse than that delay has been the huge collateral damage inflicted on those political parties which have effectively been excluded from the negotiations. By confining negotiations to Sinn Fein and the UUP, the Government, with Dublin's compliance, has sidelined the SDLP, the Alliance, the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and the PUP to all intents and purposes. This will have severely impaired them in the forthcoming election. It will not be held on a level playing field.
	Practising the black arts in smoke-filled rooms—I speak metaphorically now that Dr John Reid is no longer Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—with an attempt to exercise rigid control on the part of No. 10, has proved not to be the best way to resume democratic devolution. As we saw yesterday—and as could have been predicted—the UUP/Sinn Fein deal fell apart in the Government's hands. Trying to manipulate the process in this way has been counter-productive and is the very antithesis of inclusive democratic dialogue. The Government must now rue the day they peremptorily and unilaterally aborted the May election.
	At least there is now going to be an election, and that is to be welcomed. After that, the pro-agreement parties— along with, I suspect, the DUP—will seek to establish an executive. I hope they succeed. In the mean time, the Government would be well advised to back off trying to choreograph down to the last detail some kind of a deal between Sinn Fein and the UUP. Will the Government now proceed with a much lighter rein and go in for much less micro-management? Even if the duopolistic deal can be revived, there is no guarantee that David Trimble can deliver given the ruptures within his own party and in the wider Unionist community.
	Let the people of Northern Ireland now speak; let their freshly elected representatives attempt to form a power-sharing executive; and let us hope that it is successful.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments but, before I answer the specific questions that have been raised, let me say that I am a little disappointed with their response. Considerable progress has been made and it is not helpful to describe the outcome of yesterday's discussions as a shambles when talks are still ongoing and we are in the midst of very delicate negotiations. We all know how difficult peace processes are; we all know how difficult it is to reach the stage where negotiations are concluded; and we all know that there will be points where we take steps backwards rather than forwards. Of course we are deeply disappointed—we will have to consider what happened yesterday—but, at the same time, recriminations are not helpful.
	Talks have been going on between the UUP and Sinn Fein. The Government have not been a party to those talks. The leaders of the two parties have been engaged in those talks and that is a considerable step forward given the position of the parties only a few months ago.
	Specific questions have been asked in regard to confidentiality in decommissioning and inclusivity in the talks. The decommissioning legislation expressly provides for the principle of confidentiality if the organisation doing the decommissioning asks for it. The Government are clear that they would like to see greater transparency, but that is the nature of the legislation. It was considered necessary when the system was established in order that decommissioning should take place at all. We all agree that we need a system to deliver complete decommissioning, but it should be done in a manner which is conducive to creating public confidence. That is the next stage. In answering questions in another place today, the Prime Minister made clear that we would be working on finding a way to disclose and that the talks will continue. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
	As regards hype, this is entirely a matter of confidence between the parties. The process has not been orchestrated by the Government. We have done all we can to facilitate engagement between the parties and we shall continue to do so. We shall try and try again in relation to that.
	The issue of inclusivity was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. Devolved government was suspended because of a lack of confidence between two of the parties. Restoration of confidence has been a key requirement for moving forward and, as noble Lords will know, there have been a large number of meetings between those two parties. However, it is important to put on record that we would not have made the great advances of recent times without the collective effort of all the pro-agreement parties. I pay tribute to the courage and commitment of them all. As I said in the House earlier this week, there have been ongoing discussions with the other parties.
	As regards the speech of Mr Adams, as I said in the Statement, he called for a full and final closure of the conflict—and that was endorsed by the IRA.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, on the basis of the information made available to us, the two Governments are to be congratulated on having brought the talks so close to success. Many of us wonder why the talks failed because, technically, the differences appear to be slight. Was there a reason for the breakdown? Given the assurances of the Prime Minister, does my noble friend agree that if everyone knew what he knew we would be satisfied? Will not the parties in Northern Ireland think again about the outcome—which has not succeeded so far—and redouble their efforts to bring these talks to a conclusion? We have been so close that it would be a tragedy if they cannot bring it off this time.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree that we are so close that it would be a pity if we were not able to come to a conclusion. As I said in answer to questions from the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith of Clifton, we will try and try again. It is good that the parties will continue to talk. As the Prime Minister said earlier today, we are working on finding a way to disclose on the issue of decommissioning.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the Irish and British Governments set up the monitoring commission to observe whether the acts of completion were being carried out as part of the run-up to, and condition of, the election. But in his speech Mr Adams dismissed the monitoring commission with the greatest contempt. Can the Lord President assure the House that, nevertheless, the IRA will be required to allow people in the Irish communities—who are still being terribly treated by IRA paramilitaries—to testify to the commission? Is that one of the requirements to be placed on Mr Adams as proof of genuine good faith?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me earlier in the week about the commission. I hope that she has received my letter in response.
	The draft international agreement establishing the commission was published early in September. Once signed and ratified the agreement will formally confer functions on the commission and set out the terms of its operation. I do not want to anticipate its terms of operation. There was a recent announcement in regard to the setting-up of the commission and the work it is anticipated it will do. I should like to check the facts relating to the noble Baroness's question and write to her.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement. I agree with the Minister that recrimination takes us nowhere and that we should try to make progress. But that does not take away the disappointment that everyone in Northern Ireland—and, I am sure, in the House—felt at the turn of events yesterday when General de Chastelain failed to give transparency to the IRA's act of decommissioning.
	Like other parties, Ulster Unionists wish to see the election of a government in Northern Ireland. However, what we saw yesterday fell far short of our expectations. We expected greater transparency from the IRA and greater clarity from the IICD about precisely what had been decommissioned.
	The Prime Minister has continually pointed to a lack of confidence among Unionists in Ulster. If, as the Prime Minister suggested last night, the IRA has undertaken a substantial act of decommissioning and is now finally and fully committed to the political process, will the Government now assist in rebuilding lost confidence by disclosing the details of yesterday's decommissioning event?
	The Prime Minister, Ministers and officials continually refer to the decommissioning legislation as constraining their ability to disclose fully the decommissioning information. Can the noble Baroness pinpoint where in the legislation this confidentiality clause actually is? Can she further tell us to whom or to what exactly this confidentiality clause applies; or does it just apply to the IICD and General de Chastelain, thus excluding the Prime Minister from this obligation?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for his general comments and his recognition of the work which has gone into this process. I entirely agree with him about the nature of the disappointment.
	It is open for a group to decommission with confidentiality. This was agreed to and, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear in another place earlier today, he is not at liberty to disclose without the general's permission.
	As I said earlier, the Government would like more transparency. We will work to achieve that greater transparency because it is an important way of restoring confidence. I can only repeat what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said earlier today—that we will work on finding a way to disclose.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Lord President of the Council agree that the vast majority of ordinary people in Northern Ireland want to see an end to political and criminal violence? Further, can she confirm that I am right in thinking that there have already been three substantial rounds of IRA disarmament, but on the other side of the equation, I believe that so far only nine obsolete weapons have been produced for destruction by loyalist paramilitaries? Does that not indicate a rather asymmetrical situation, and does she see a prospect for remedying that?
	Finally, can the noble Baroness confirm that full and final closure of the conflict is intended to encompass such events as beatings, shootings in the leg, exilings, death threats and intimidation? Is that not a consummation greatly to be desired?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think we are all agreed that the statement made by Mr Adams yesterday, which was endorsed by the IRA, that there would be full and final closure of the conflict, marks a very significant and welcome step forward. In terms of the application of that to specific areas, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is asking me, I am afraid I am not able to go into those specific areas, but if I can give the noble Lord any further information, I will be happy to do so.
	I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we are all seeking an end to the political and criminal violence in Northern Ireland. That is something the people of Northern Ireland desperately want.
	On decommissioning, it was confirmed yesterday by General de Chastelain that the quantity involved was considerably larger than that dealt with in the previous decommissioning event. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that the decommissioning process applies not just to the IRA but to all paramilitary groups.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, in welcoming the Lord President's Statement, I, too, was very pleased to learn and hear about the discussions that had taken place between Mr Trimble and Mr Adams. We are told there have been several. However, I also saw that that could create problems because others have not been involved. What I did not bargain for was that as a result of those discussions and what was supposed to happen yesterday, it would appear that the two parties did not know what they had agreed. This seems very strange indeed.
	There is supposed to be choreography; it seems to me that what was lacking was a clerk to the choreography. Could the Government assist in making certain that where these things happen, people at least know what they are supposed to have agreed, because that—to me, at any rate—was the tragedy of what happened yesterday?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the important thing as we see it is that the Government's role is to try to facilitate the process where the parties are talking. That is very much the approach that we have taken.
	I am unable to comment on the noble Lord's point with respect to a clerk being needed to take a note of the conversations. The important thing is that these conversations are taking place at all. I think and hope that as a result of yesterday the parties will now look very seriously at what has happened and will think through what steps they need to take to build on the confidence which is already being created to enable us to take the process to the final step.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, since the signing of the Belfast agreement, it has always been known by elected representatives in Northern Ireland that the question of decommissioning would be of crucial importance in bringing about any settlement. Indeed, the paramilitaries—the IRA—had given an undertaking that total decommissioning would take place within two years. Repeatedly in this House, it has been drawn to the Government's attention that the whole question of decommissioning must be made more transparent. I have a copy of Hansard in my hand, containing a speech I made in this House on 12th September, when we came back after the summer recess. I stressed that it was crucial that the people of Northern Ireland should be made aware of what took place under the aegis of the de Chastelain commission.
	I heard only yesterday—as, I think, did other noble Lords—that the secrecy built into the de Chastelain commission was insisted upon by one of the paramilitary organisations. The very fact that secrecy was built in has led to great suspicion, but then all communities in Northern Ireland, particularly the Unionist community, feel very insecure. I listened to some of the speeches made in the other place this morning; we were told that if the IRA decommissioned, the loyalist murder gangs—the paramilitaries—would decommission in support of that. Does anyone really believe, at this moment in time, that the loyalist murder gangs of the UDA and UVF will rush to decommission because of what happened yesterday?
	Northern Ireland politicians were placed in a very distressing situation yesterday. The noble Baroness said that the British Government had no involvement in the discussions between the two parties. Then why have all these meetings been taking place in Downing Street over the past weeks? The two parties that were involved were in and out of there like yo-yos. However, other political parties, such as the SDLP, the party which I formerly led, and the Alliance party—I agree with what has been said on the Liberal Democrat Benches—although instrumental in and constructive about the process, were totally excluded. What happened yesterday—and I hesitate to predict this and hope that I am wrong—means that in the forthcoming election Sinn Fein will take seats from the SDLP and the so-called Democratic Unionist Party will take seats off the official Unionist Party. In what situation will the Government and the people of Northern Ireland then find themselves?
	I refer to the fact that the Government agreed that the de Chastelain scheme would be surrounded by such secrecy. I repeat what I said on 12th of this month in relation to the Monitoring Commission—that if the same secrecy is going to surround the activities of that body, there is too much secrecy in Northern Ireland. The people who are in a position to decide to cast their votes must be made totally aware of what is happening, so that they can vote in their interests in Northern Ireland.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that given the history, we need to be sure that Unionists and others in Northern Ireland are clear that there is a substantial act of decommissioning. I entirely agree with him on that. However, I remind him that, when the system of decommissioning was established, it was considered necessary to have the confidentiality clause, because it was felt that decommissioning would not happen at all with out it. The confidentiality requirement is set out in the decommissioning scheme, which is based on Sections 3(1)(c) and (d) of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. It has been in place for some time.
	On the question that the noble Lord raised with respect to inclusivity, I repeat what I said in relation to earlier questions. The suspension occurred because of a lack of confidence and trust between two parties, which have been engaged in discussions to enable us to work towards restoring, or beginning to establish, that confidence and trust. That is why the focus has been on those two parties. Having said that, there have been meetings with other parties. Indeed, in the past two weeks there were two meetings between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the SDLP.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, like most old hands, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and I might be tempted to say that this high-wire act, like many before it, is in very real danger of collapsing after five years. However, I want to be positive.
	I do not expect a reply today, because the Minister has not had notice of the question. Will Her Majesty's Government consider a plan for administrative devolution designed by a former government, endorsed in 1979 by the entire United Kingdom electorate, but sabotaged by the Foreign Office and its allies on the grounds that—to use their own words—"It was not enough"? The problem with "not enough" is that it usually means that you get nothing; I have said that before. But surely the time has come to revise that modest plan after a vacuum of 22 years, and this time build it on really solid foundations.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making it clear that he does not require an answer to that question today. It is something that we must go away and consider, and I will of course write to him.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, should we not reflect on the years that preceded the Good Friday agreement and the deaths, violence, carnage and hatred in the two intractably opposed communities in Northern Ireland? We should reiterate and welcome the progress that we have made since then, and not least pay some credit to the leadership of David Trimble. In very difficult circumstances, he has persevered against all the odds, both inside and outside his party and across the communities in Northern Ireland. Many of us admire the courage that he has shown.
	Although the process may today be in some disarray, the fact that there is a process at all is something that we should welcome, and be optimistic and strong about. Over the summer, such a personal relationship has developed between David Trimble and Gerry Adams; that could never have happened before the Good Friday process. There may be stumbles and a faltering approach, but this is the way in which we will see normality in Northern Ireland, the entrenching of democratic institutions and the proper way towards peace. The Government should be congratulated on facilitating those things and helping the process along.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, first for reminding us of some of the recent history and, in particular, of the situation before the Good Friday agreement. We have had the quietest summer in Northern Ireland for some 30 years. The noble Lord is quite right.
	We should pay tribute to the collective efforts of all the parties in Northern Ireland for their courage and commitment. For example, without the SDLP's commitment to the policing process several years ago, we would be much less far forward than we are now. The noble Lord referred to the courage and bravery of David Trimble. Others too numerous to mention have been engaged in the process and have stuck with it because the ultimate prize is peace.

Extradition Bill

Report received.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"PURPOSE OF THIS ACT
	The purpose of this Act is to make provision about extradition and to give effect to the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002, on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, after nine days in Grand Committee, this important Bill now reaches the Floor of the House. I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to some of the arguments put in Grand Committee and have tabled a total of 158 amendments to the Bill. I give advance notice that some of the government amendments on the significant issues will need to be further amended. That reflects the fact that the Government listened to some of the arguments put in Grand Committee, but also, sadly, that they have set their face against the argument of principle that we pressed on the issue of the European arrest warrant. Today, therefore, we have ahead of us some important amendments.
	The objective of Amendment No. 1 is to set out clearly the purpose that underpins this legislation, and ensure that a reference is made to surrender procedures right at the start. We had a substantial debate on the amendment in Grand Committee, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson raised the issue briefly in a debate on the Criminal Justice Bill earlier this month. I shall therefore abide by the guidance on the Report stage and try to be as brief as possible.
	The Long Title of the Bill states that it is a Bill to make, "provision about extradition". We believe that that is misleading. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out in Grand Committee that Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill serve different purposes and are based on distinctly different procedures. Another of the Minister's many noble friends, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made the same point, when he said that,
	"while the Bill concerns extradition, Part 1 especially seeks to give effect to the framework decision about the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures which are explicitly stated in that decision to be the object of the Union".—[Official Report, 3/6/03; col. GC 122.]
	The new extradition system for category 1 countries does not correspond in any way to the meaning of the word "extradition" as understood by the public. To them, extradition means a fully judicial process involving home and overseas judicial authorities, with appropriate checks and balances. Under this proposal, in Part 1, those checks and balances are too few.
	Perhaps we should not be surprised, because the European arrest warrant is contained in a Council framework decision in paragraph 5, of which the preamble reads:
	"The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition"—
	I emphasise "abolishing"—
	"between member states and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities".
	A sample of the warrant to be used is included later in the document. Paragraph (i) of the warrant refers to:
	"contact details of the person to contact to make necessary practical arrangements for the surrender".
	We propose nothing more sinister than clarity in stating that the purpose of the Bill is not straightforward extradition but, in Part 1, surrender as well. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the main issue before us today is an attempt to remove Part 1, which concerns the European arrest warrant, or to restrict it to terrorist offences. I make clear that if that is the main aim, we shall certainly support the Government on the matter.
	The noble Baroness talked about the European arrest warrant. We simply want to ensure that it will simplify and speed up extradition procedures. In particular, it will be unnecessary to provide prima facie evidence in support of an application for extradition. However, that is not a major change in the law, because all European Union member states are already party to the Council of Europe Convention on Extradition, which dispenses with the need to provide prima facie evidence.
	The argument is likely to be based mainly on the restriction of dual criminality, to which we shall come later, and which is a rule that forbids extradition unless the relevant offence is a crime under the laws of both the territory requesting extradition and the territory receiving the request. Under the framework decision setting up the European arrest warrant, Article 2.2, concerning EU members, states that dual criminality must not be applied for the 32 categories of offences listed in the article if the minimum sentence for that offence in the requesting territory is at least two years.
	We accept that on the ground that people are required to observe the law of the territory in which they are present and, in the case of serious offences, should not be able to escape extradition on the technical ground that the offence with which they are charged does not correspond to a specific offence under UK law.
	Later, we shall debate large groups of amendments led by Amendments Nos. 3 and 6. I am dealing with the matter now because I do not want to pop up on every amendment in those groups simply to say that we will not support them.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, there is often, but not always, good reason for a purpose clause in a Bill. In this case, the reason is compelling. I am sure that my noble friend has not moved the amendment as a gesture; there is a need for a purpose clause. If the Bill is to be properly understood now and in future, it must make clear that it has the two distinct purposes to which my noble friend referred. Its aim is to speed up existing extradition procedures with countries outside the European Union and also to include in English and Scots law the European Union framework agreement already accepted by the Government.
	As my noble friend said, in its preamble the framework states that it will lead to the abolition of extradition and its replacement with a system of surrender. The Bill abolishes extradition and introduces a system of surrender. It also improves extradition with states outside the Union. Surely it should say so. The Short and Long Titles do not state that. My noble friend suggested that they are misleading; they are. There must be a purpose clause. I hope that the Government will agree to that; that would do them no harm and make for clarity in future. I support the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have come to the opposite conclusion. Everything that could be said in favour of the amendment ought to be said in speeches, not spelt out in the Bill. Many Bills come before the House of which people observe that certain matters ought to be stressed. That is right. The purposes spelt out in the amendment are entirely appropriate, but that is not a matter for the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment to a Division, because it would be counter-productive.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I shall briefly support my noble friend Lady Anelay on the amendment. When we debated an identical amendment upstairs in Committee, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that he would reflect on what we said. Although he held out no great hopes of agreeing with our proposal, he nevertheless made clear that he would reflect on it. He said that he believed it important that the Bill's purpose be made clear.
	The amendment is important and a purpose clause justified in this case because this is a major Bill that makes substantial change to existing law. On Second Reading, I had the temerity to suggest that it was difficult to say that this is merely a Bill to simplify the Extradition Act 1989 when it extends to many clauses and pages and is far longer than the Act that it claims to simplify.
	In two vital ways, the Bill changes the law for category 1 countries, in that it does away with the requirement for the Secretary of State to have an executive role in returning those for whom extradition has been asked; and because it does away with the rule of dual criminality, which has always been accepted. A Bill as fundamental as that should make clear in its purpose clause what it does, which is as my noble friend Lady Anelay described.
	Does the Minister have any real objection to including the clause? In particular, does she agree—as, it appears, it was implicitly accepted in Committee—that the words of the purpose clause, whether or not it is necessary, accurately reflect what the Bill does? If I am right about that, is there any harm in having that written into the Bill?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment, but I must say that I am sorry that we must start the debate in this way, with the Government being accused so boldly of being misleading. Nothing could be further from the truth. Noble Lords will know that both in the other place and in Grand Committee the Government have strenuously defended our position and been open and frank about the purposes for which the Bill is to be used. There has been no attempt to mislead, hide or cover our purpose.
	I must endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said and thank him for the clarity and succinctness with which he outlined the purpose of this part. Unsurprisingly, I also agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I refute the charge made in its entirety. The framework decision cleared scrutiny in both this House and another place well before the Bill was even introduced. At every stage, the Government explained that the framework decision and the European arrest warrant would be implemented by Part 1 of the Bill and have ensured that the way in which the Bill transposes the provisions into United Kingdom law is clear. There has been no secret there either: the link between the Bill and the framework decision is transparent.
	It is important that we get the Bill right, because it will govern the law in the United Kingdom; as all noble Lords know, the framework decision has no legal force.
	We believe that the Long Title of the Bill—
	"to make provision about extradition",
	is clear and accurate. Extradition is about the transfer of a wanted fugitive after due judicial process—a definition which applies equally to Part 1 of this Bill as much as it does to Part 2 and, for that matter, to the Extradition Act 1989.
	If I may say so, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seems somewhat preoccupied with the term "surrender". I believe that term was also used by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, it is a term used in the framework decision, but for the purposes of this Bill and our system in the United Kingdom we believe that it is clearer and more accurate to refer consistently to extradition throughout the legislation. The Bill is about extradition—the process of sending back wanted criminals to face justice after due judicial process. It is simply wrong to claim that the Bill puts in place surrender arrangements which somehow deviate from that.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned, we dealt with this matter in passing in a different context in Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill. I urge the noble Baroness and noble Lords opposite not to press the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Filkin promised, we reconsidered the matter. We considered whether it had merit and we came to the conclusion that that which we have now expresses the truth of the situation and is clear, honest and straightforward. Therefore, we do not think that there is any need to amend further. I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I perfectly understand the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The Liberal Democrats made their position clear throughout Grand Committee and spring no surprises on me. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is deputising for the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who is the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the Bill but who is unavoidably absent. I accept that he has taken the proper course in saying that he will not speak to each and every group of amendments.
	I am grateful for the support of my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Carlisle of Bucklow regarding the need for a clear statement of purpose. The Minister said that the Government preferred to refer consistently simply to extradition and that they have been clear and open about what the Bill is about. The Government pepper the Bill with references to surrender. We simply seek greater clarity. Later we shall discuss government Amendment No. 308, which seeks to insert the European framework list on the face of the Bill. Subsection (3) of the new clause in that amendment refers to the surrender procedures between member states. So in a sense we are at one on how we consider that the framework list should operate. However, we believe that we need clarity. As my noble friends have said, we believe that a purpose clause is needed. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 155.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 1 [Extradition to category 1 territories]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 6, leave out "Order in Council" and insert "order made by the Secretary of State"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5.
	I hope that your Lordships will welcome and agree to the government amendments. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling Amendment No. 5, which is concerned with the designation of territories under Part 1. However, I believe that in the light of the additional protection and scrutiny offered by the government amendments, Amendment No. 5 will not be necessary or appropriate.
	The group is the first of a number of groups of government amendments which we will discuss today. I hope that it will set the tone for those to come, as I imagine it will be welcome to your Lordships. The amendments, like many to come, respond to points raised in Grand Committee. We have gone away and considered many of the points raised, and in many cases have been able to come forward with government amendments designed to meet the concerns.
	In this case, we are dealing with an issue that was raised not only by noble Lords in Grand Committee, but by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. That committee recommended that orders designating countries as extradition partners should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, even though that represents a much higher level of parliamentary scrutiny than we have at the moment. We have taken those comments to heart.
	The main purpose of the amendments is therefore to provide that, henceforth, the designation of the United Kingdom's extradition partners will be by the affirmative resolution procedure. For the avoidance of doubt, I should also put on record that any orders to disapply the prima facie evidential requirement for any country, and any orders to vary the period within which a Part 2 country has to supply full papers following provisional arrest, are also subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Again, that is in line with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
	I should explain why in a number of places in the Bill we are changing Orders in Council to Secretary of State orders. Simply, there is no reason why designation orders should be Orders in Council. They are at the moment, but that is a legacy of the Extradition Act 1870, passed when the world was a very different place and we legislated in a very different way. Using Orders in Council makes life much more difficult, not least because timing is very much constrained by the timetable of Privy Council meetings. The key point—I should stress it—is that making the change has absolutely no impact on the level of parliamentary scrutiny that the orders receive. That is determined by the rest of the Bill and, as I have just explained, we are providing for all designation orders to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	Amendment No. 5 would restrict the countries which could be designated under Part 1 to those which had signed the framework decision on the EAW, which are the member states of the EU, Norway and Iceland. The issue was debated at some length in Grand Committee. On 3rd June, the Grand Committee's first sitting, my noble friend Lord Filkin explained the Government's thinking on which countries would be in Part 1. Having considered the matter further, our position is unchanged. We remain of the view that it is not desirable to limit the countries which could be designated under Part 1 to those countries which had signed the framework decision on the EAW.
	However, we do not believe that we should limit the room for manoeuvre of our successors if they decide that they want to put a non-European country into Part 1. On previous occasions, we have discussed the possibility—I must stress that it is only a possibility—of putting a Commonwealth country such as Australia, New Zealand or Canada into Part 1. Those are countries with established democracies, where the rule of law is respected, and it does not strike us as impossible that there may be a strong case for putting them in Part 1 at some point in future. I therefore believe that the Bill needs to retain a modicum of flexibility to cope with the situation.
	I know that the noble Baroness has concerns about what criteria would be used to determine whether a country might be added to Part 1. As I have indicated, the Government have no plans to designate any non-European countries in Part 1. That being so, we do not believe it appropriate to set out the criteria now for the designation of a country which may or may not happen at some specified point in future. By bringing forward the government amendments in the group, the designation of any country under Parts 1 and 2 will be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
	Therefore, if at the appropriate time it is deemed desirable to add a non-European country to Part 1, we have made sure there will be an opportunity for Members of both Houses to consider the basis of that proposal and whether the designation is justified. The affirmative resolution procedure is an important procedural safeguard and gives the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. Once that is in place, I suggest that it would not be appropriate to limit the flexibility of Part 1 any further.
	I hope that that gives the noble Baroness sufficient reassurance to agree not to press her amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I welcome this group of government amendments. They respond properly and fully to the objections put first in another place by my honourable friends and subsequently by me in this House where I was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Indeed, the Minister is right to refer to the excellent report of the Delegated Powers Committee.
	I am grateful to the Minister for addressing my concerns in Amendment No. 5: what happens if any government want to extend the list? I find comfort in some of her earlier comments because she said that the Government would expect the extension to be those of an established democracy where the rule of law was respected. That is just what we want to hear.
	I shall not press the matter to a Division today. I want merely to put on the record our concern that we are leaving to uncertainty—albeit an affirmative statutory instrument—the extension of a system of surrender extradition, which will be a swift and powerful weapon. We have made that point and are grateful for the Government's recognition of the importance of these orders. They have rightly changed them from an Order in Council to a statutory instrument, which reflects what happens in the real world.
	I have a question of which I was unable to give the Minister notice, but I do not believe that it will trouble her too much. It relates to the further report issued today by e-mail by the hard-working Delegated Powers Committee. I commend the committee on the expedition with which it has done so. It makes another recommendation relating to negative instruments being changed to affirmative ones—and that is the Government's Amendment No. 313 to Clause 315. For the convenience of the House, is the noble Baroness in a position to indicate whether by Monday, the second day on Report, the Government will be able to table an amendment which will meet the point of view expressed by the Delegated Powers Committee—a point of view which we fully support?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that the report has only recently been issued on e-mail and therefore she will not be surprised to learn that we have not had time to give it the full consideration that it deserves. I undertake to look at the matter fully and properly and at our next meeting on the Bill to come forward with an answer. If we reach a swifter conclusion, I shall seek to indicate that to both Front Benches so that they can address appropriate comments.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I hope that that was the Minister answering the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, before she sat down rather than her closing speech, otherwise I shall be debarred from speaking. Taking it as such, I, too, welcome the fact that the Government have moved to this sensible solution.
	I share the Minister's view that it renders Amendment No. 5 unnecessary, but I want to ask a question about the criteria which will be used for designation. Is it the Government's intention to designate a country only if it has a system of extradition which is reciprocal to the system in Part 1 or at least is moving rapidly towards that? I hope that we shall not see a situation in which we are extraditing under a Part 1 system to a country which is not giving us the equivalent reciprocal powers.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was a member of the Delegated Powers Committee and I took part in Grand Committee and I, too, welcome the amendments that the Minister has made. Without wanting in any way to be ungracious, I believe that the House should remember what the Government once thought was the right way of proceeding. They believed that additions to the list of countries to which a United Kingdom citizen could be surrendered—could be sent back—unprotected by the existing extradition procedure could be decided by Parliament without discussion or agreement in both Houses.
	The Government have changed their mind, but they believed that until now. It illustrates that they have convinced themselves that they are simply tweaking the extradition laws, which was borne out by the noble Baroness, and doing no more. It is a great deal more than that and it is having a big effect on the liberty of the citizen. It is interesting that the Government needed a push to make the change.
	I do not want to be ungracious, but we should put that on the record. As we proceed through the Bill, we must ensure that we are looking carefully at the effect of, in particular, Part 1 on the liberty and freedom of United Kingdom citizens.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I repeat that the countries which may be considered are those with established democracies and where the rule of law operates. Noble Lords will know that the difference between EU countries in Part 1 and other countries in Part 2 is that we are in comity with the EU countries—we share similar values and traditions and we have made certain binding agreements with them in partnership. It is, if you like, the family of Europe. We will be looking carefully at the matter. The Government would not seek to suggest that any country with which we did not have similar strong ties and reflect similar values could in any way be involved in Part 1. I hope that that reassures noble Lords. As I said, we have no such intention at the moment. The provision simply allows us the possibility of doing so if the need arises.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I fully understand what the Minister is saying about similar values and ties. My question was: will we insist that they have reciprocal arrangements so that we can get people back here for trial as easily under an equivalent Part 1 system rather under an old-fashioned system requiring much more? It seems wrong that we should allow other people easy extradition if they do not give us easy extradition.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is saying. The whole point of Part 1 is that we have total reciprocity. I can only anticipate that anyone who wants to participate in Part 1 must participate on the same terms as all the others. I cannot bind the Government on that, but it would be my reasonable expectation. There is a difference between Parts 1 and 2 because, as the noble Viscount knows, there are those with whom we do not have parity of treatment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 6 at end insert "and only applies to persons who have been charged with or convicted of terrorist offences"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, with the leave of the House I shall speak to the very large number of amendments grouped with it. To save time for the House later when speaking to the group headed by Amendment No. 6, which would delete the whole of Part 1, I shall try to amalgamate the arguments so far as is reasonably possible.
	The amendments in this group have one straightforward objective. They would confine the use of the European arrest warrant to terrorism offences alone. We have argued consistently in both Houses that we believe that Part 2 does enough to fulfil the Government's objectives—that is, to speed up our extradition procedures and to remove the ability of criminals to evade justice by unnecessary and convoluted appeals.
	We welcome now, as we always have done, the streamlining of our extradition procedures. We recognise that a reform of our extradition law is necessary and we welcome the Government's commitment that cases which currently take 18 months or more will, under Part 2 of the Bill, in future be dealt with in about six months. That seems to us to be right as an objective. We agree that the current delays in extradition impede the delivery of justice and that they are an unwarranted burden on the victims of the offences for which extradition is sought.
	I stress all that because, when I re-read the Hansard report of our debates on these amendments in Grand Committee, it seemed to me that, from time to time, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, implied that, by hoping to restrict Part 1 to terrorist offences or, indeed, by hoping to knock it out altogether, we were somehow being soft on criminals and assisting them to commit their crimes with impunity. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. If that were the case, then the Government are doing precisely the same thing in Part 2, and I would never accuse them of trying to do that.
	Therefore, why do we try to restrict Part 1 of the Bill to terrorism alone? The answer is that we do not agree with the Minister on the essential focus of Part 1. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, told us in Grand Committee:
	"We do not see why those who commit serious crimes should not also be subject to the fast-track procedures that we propose for Part 1, which strike the right balance between ensuring the right to fair treatment under the law as well as speed of decision".—[Official Report, 3/6/03; col. GC 150.]
	We on these Benches believe that the removal of key safeguards from Part 1—in particular, the removal of the ministerial right of decision as the final decision on every extradition case and the removal of the protection of dual criminality from the list of 32 offences—does not ensure the right to fair treatment under the law, which we seek to guarantee to all our citizens.
	Of course, it is true that the measure will achieve speedier decision-making—the Government are right about that. They say that it will reduce decision-making to three months. However, we believe that for the sake of three months—that is, six months in Part 2 and three months in Part 1—we are giving up too many freedoms for our citizens. This is not about siding with the criminals as opposed to the victims; it is about fundamental, basic rights, which, at present, our judicial system provides for our citizens, and about whether we feel that those should be compromised by accepting Part 1 in its current form.
	I hope that, thus far, I have justified both these amendments and those that will follow in the group headed by Amendment No. 6. Therefore, when we come to the later amendments, I shall not repeat what I have said.
	It is unfortunate that, because of the way in which, quite rightly, we deal with amendments, I have to invite the House to consider our second preference first—that is, to confine the Part 1 operation to terrorism offences only—before we can then go on to consider our first preference, which is to delete Part 1 from the Bill altogether.
	We recognise that terrorism is, indeed, a unique threat. The Government argue that benefit in relation to other serious crimes will be gained from Part 1 procedures and that it makes no sense to differentiate between terrorism and other offences. I believe otherwise. First, other serious crimes can be dealt with by Part 2 procedures, which may take just three months longer but should ultimately deliver justice of the same quality. Secondly, in this country terrorist activities are officially recognised as being of a different nature from ordinary criminal activities. After all, we have a definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act, and it is that definition that we use in our amendment.
	Therefore, as a whole, this group of amendments would remove all references to an extradition offence in Part 1 of the Bill and all references to offences outlined in the European framework list with regard to the broad issue of offences. It will narrow them down and replace them with a definition of a terrorist offence. If the Government are determined to resist our request in the next group of amendments to excise Part 1 from the Bill, then of course we shall decide now that we believe Part 1 should be for terrorist offences only. This is the second best option: we have saved the best till last. I beg to move.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I find this amendment remarkable. A short while ago, the noble Baroness moved Amendment No. 1 to explain that:
	"The purpose of this Act . . . is to give effect to the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002".
	As I understand it, the Council framework decision of 13th June 2002 lists a very large number of crimes to which this procedure is to apply. For those of your Lordships who are not already grossly over-bored with this matter, they will find that list in Amendment No. 328. Obviously, a large number of the serious crimes listed there are not terrorist offences.
	Ten minutes after telling us that we should say that the Bill is intended to give effect to the Council framework decision, the noble Baroness moved an amendment designed to ensure that it does not give effect to about 75 per cent of that framework decision. I am never surprised by inconsistency among politicians, but this takes even me somewhat aback.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we cannot support the amendments in this group, which would restrict the European arrest warrant to terrorist offences. I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. Our position remains the same as we spelt out in Grand Committee. I shall repeat the words of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who, as was mentioned, is not present as he is on important business abroad. He said:
	"I can see no justification for confining Part 1 to terrorist offences. If Part 1 is not suitable for people charged with other serious offences up to and including murder, it cannot be suitable for people who are charged with but not, at that stage, convicted of terrorist offences. They must be entitled to the same kind of defence against improper extradition as anyone else".—[Official Report, 3/6/03; col. GC 144.]
	That is why we cannot support the amendments in this group.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as to my noble friend's consistency, I have to say, in her support, that her first amendment was not carried by the House. Had it been, she certainly would not have moved this amendment. One sometimes has to have failsafe amendments. Indeed, if the removal of Part 1 were voted for by the House, she would not be moving this amendment. Therefore, the noble Viscount should forgive her for that. Even if she did seem to be talking in two different directions, one has to take account of the procedure of the House. I believe that that is only fair.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am astonished that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, should be surprised at inconsistency in political matters. Politics is full of inconsistencies, as we note every day in this Chamber.
	I am certainly in favour of the amendment, and the Minister will remember that I raised this matter both at Second Reading and in Grand Committee. I believe that, had the process of introducing a European arrest warrant gone forward in the usual way, it probably would not have turned out as it has. Indeed, the impetus given to it, the reason it was introduced so quickly and the reason we are discussing it on Report now is because of the terrorist act on 11th September 2001. It is perfectly plain from the discussions of the European Parliament that the arrest warrant would not have received a blessing as quickly or as fully as it did were it not for 9/11.
	I am extremely worried by Part 1 of the Bill. It is perfectly proper and desirable to have an amendment to the general extradition procedure. That probably had become outdated, although I am no expert on the matter. Putting the European arrest warrant in the Bill—putting Part 1 in the Bill—explodes the myth that the Bill is about extradition. Part 1 is not about simple extradition; it is about harmonisation of the judicial process between our country and the European Union and it is a step further towards judicial integration.
	I do not believe that that should have been wrapped up in a Bill that is supposed to be about extradition. I note that the Government were good enough to write to me about the matter, but unfortunately they did not convince me and I am sure that they did not expect to convince me. Despite their efforts, I support the amendment and if there is a Division on it I shall support it in the Lobbies.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, the second approach—to get rid of Part 1—is the logical approach. If we do not do that we can consider whether it should be confined to terrorist offences. The Minister said that the basis upon which we propose these special arrangements with EU countries is that they all embrace the same view of the rule of law and they are all part of the judicial family. I regret to say that I find absolutely no signs of that whatever. Perhaps they are all striving to get there, but many of them have a very long way to go and the situation will be even worse when the EU is enlarged.
	For my part, the Bill, with its surrender provisions, is premature. When we are all one family it may be fine. If the proposal were to bring in Canada, the situation would be different altogether. Perhaps then I would be an enthusiastic supporter because it would be more justifiable.
	I find myself in the position of not liking this system of surrender without adequate precautions within our own community to ensure that there is a just surrender. But I accept that in our view of the law we have to take account of the realities of terrorism. We have tried—to some extent successfully—to preserve the liberties of the individual, even if someone is accused of acts of terrorism and even if there is very strong evidence that he or she is guilty. We have tried and I believe that we have more or less succeeded, but it must be accepted that we have introduced modifications to the law to meet the case of terrorism.
	Against the background that, from my point of view, the Part 1 changes to the law are premature and at present wholly unsatisfactory, I would go along with the possibility that they could be applied to terrorism, but to terrorism only. Accordingly, I support the amendment.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I follow exactly the reasoning of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I am deeply sceptical of the presumption that all EU countries have fairly equal justice systems that justify the need for any other country to scrutinise the fairness of extradition to such a country. Frankly, I find it a little unconvincing that we should retain the controls in relation to the United States but abolish them in relation to other EU countries.
	Not so long ago we had a request for extradition from the United States in relation to a British citizen of Algerian descent. The British courts threw out the case because in the opinion of the court the United States' prosecuting authorities did not offer evidence that was convincing enough. Quite rightly, many British newspapers took the opportunity to comment on how that showed the independence and the robustness of the British courts system. Despite the tremendous pressure and the atmosphere at that time, the court considered the evidence and decided, despite political pressure from the United States Government, not to concede. I took pride in the fact that we have courts that are independent in that way.
	Of course, in future no such court could take such a stance in relation to a request from an EU country. Under one of the amendments proposed by my noble friend on the Front Bench, extradition would be allowed for a terrorist offence. However, as she has explained, her real objection is to the whole of Part 1 and the limitation to terrorism is a fall-back if the first amendment is rejected.
	It seems to me that it is difficult to make this point about other systems. When the matter was raised in Grand Committee the noble Baroness who led for the Government rather blandly said that everyone thinks their system is the best and different countries have different strengths. I am sure that there is some truth in that. I am not someone who believes that everything in this country is better than in other countries. But I believe that our legal system and our courts system is one of the most uncorrupt in the world and I believe that it has stood the test of time. I also believe that far less controversy surrounds our courts system than surrounds the courts and justice systems in certain other countries.
	This is a difficult point to raise, but I believe that the noble Baroness did not answer this point when it was raised in Grand Committee; nor did the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. I appreciate that they would probably prefer not to address the matter, and they have not addressed it. There are instances in relation to EU justice systems that cause concern and, I believe, justify the need to retain a right for the British courts to have a handle, perhaps through dual criminality, on a case so that there can be a hearing.
	Perhaps I could refer to what has happened in Belgium. We know, without going into the grisly details, that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the legal system there. A quarter of a million people took to the streets of Brussels to demonstrate against the judges, the judicial system and the handling of the Dutroux case. One of the peculiar points about the Dutroux case—whatever we may think of Mr Dutroux—is the justification for holding a man on remand in prison for eight years. I do not believe that that is easily justified. Public concern with the Belgian system undoubtedly exists.
	Turning to Italy, the Prime Minister of Italy has made very clear his views of the Italian legal system. He says that judges in Italy are politically motivated and corrupt. I am sure that many Members of the House believe that Mr Berlusconi is wrong, although others say that he bribed a judge. In that case the Italian justice system has something to answer even if Mr Berlusconi is in the wrong.
	At Second Reading, I quoted what Mr Strauss-Kahn, a former finance Minister of France, said about the French justice system. According to the European Convention, a person is meant to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. He said:
	"In our system you are presumed innocent until declared guilty. The reality is you are seen as guilty from the moment the judicial system is interested in you".
	Only last week I happened to have dinner with someone who had been Prime Minister of a European country. He is a major advocate of European integration. When we were discussing a particular case, he said to me: "Well, you have to recognise that in France and in Italy, justice and judges are strongly influenced by politics". I shall not embarrass the gentleman by giving his name.
	If the concerns were examined honestly and without embarrassment people would agree that they have some force. I think that the noble Baroness should answer the issue. She refused to answer it before and she brushed the matter aside. She just said "Well, everyone has their strengths and weaknesses". However, the concern is shared by Liberty, an organisation which most people think to be fairly dispassionate. It said:
	"The EAW is based upon the presumption that EU countries all have fair and equal systems of justice which should remove the need for any other country to scrutinise the fairness of extradition to such a country. This presumption is seriously open to question".
	It goes on to make this important point:
	"In the 13 years since the Extradition Act 1989 was enacted, UK courts have intervened to refuse extradition following habeas corpus or judicial review proceedings in a significant number of EU cases, and the Home Secretary has refused to extradite in a significant number of other cases where extradition would have been plainly wrong and unjust . . . For example, in Re Barone (1997) the Divisional Court held that it would not be right to extradite the defendant to Italy because he had been convicted in his absence and would have no right to appeal against his conviction. In Re Gale (2001) Portugal persisted with a request for the extradition of a young mother even though it conceded that she could not, legally, be convicted there for the alleged defence. The High Court held that her extradition would be oppressive. These are just two examples of the type of injustice which can occur even with EU partners".
	Liberty goes on to say,
	"We are very concerned that the Bill would not prevent such injustice from occurring . . . The Eurowarrant proposals would seriously increase the risk of injustice in such cases by removing the power of the High Court and Secretary of State to scrutinise the merits in an individual case. Moreover, in R (Ramda) v. Secretary of State, 27th June 2002, the High Court said that it was no answer for the Secretary of State to invoke France's status as a signatory to the Convention (and hence that the defendant could always apply to the Strasbourg court)".
	That, it ruled, was not an answer to complaints about the fairness of the trial. Time after time, whenever we raised such concerns on the Bill, we have heard chanted, "The convention, the convention, the convention". The courts have not taken that view. I put it to the Minister that, although it is embarrassing to discuss, we must consider justice for our citizens. To remove completely the rights of courts to scrutinise in any way—I am of course aware, before the noble Baroness mentions it, of what changes have been made—and the removal of dual criminality in the way that the Bill proposes is reckless and poses risks for justice. That is why I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend on the Front Bench.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised that I do not support these amendments. We have been very clear throughout about the purpose to which these provisions should be put. I can be telegraphic in responding to these amendments. I endorse absolutely the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in his recitation of the succinct summation made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Grand Committee. I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in his slight bemusement, but I understand the position in which the noble Baroness is placed.
	The noble Baroness says that Part 1 should be restricted to terrorist offences. She knows that I disagree with the narrowing of the provision to terrorism, not least because of a real difficulty in separating pure terrorist acts from subsidiary terrorist acts. We know, regrettably, that many terrorists groups participate in other forms of criminal activity of a very serious nature. To differentiate between those two would be intolerable.
	The amendments would lose the great benefits afforded to this country by the framework decision. We would lose the very real benefit of being able to seek the return of nationals from countries who currently refuse to extradite their own nationals. We would lose the benefit of being able to extradite those who commit fiscal offences. We would also lose the benefits of the efficient and effective extradition that the instrument would give us with our fellow member states.
	I cannot accept the analyses of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, or my noble friend Lord Stoddart. My noble friend said that everything was being done in order to harmonise European law. In fact, this is the antithesis of harmonisation, because these revisions seek to respect the integrity of the internal system of each state and to apply the law on that basis. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says. He challenges me to go further than I did in Committee. I am afraid that I feel unable to give him greater satisfaction. We have said very clearly that the systems in Europe comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. We have dealt quite extensively with the provisions in Articles 6, 8 and others. That would benefit from further repetition.
	Therefore, I disagree with the noble Baroness that the narrowing of the provision is proper or justified in any way. Furthermore, to seek to expunge the framework decision, which in effect is what the provisions seek to do—is fundamentally flawed and would be outwith what we agreed. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment. However, if pressed, I shall resist.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I begin by addressing the very proper remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who tried to take me to task on the basis that I appeared to be inconsistent. Indeed, he thought I was inconsistent. The Minister rode to my defence, and I hope to improve it even more. I was not able to leap to my feet and say, "But excuse me, it is not quite as bad as it looks" because the rules on Report say that I have to sit and await my opportunity.
	The first amendment I moved today looked at the Bill and found it wanting, in the sense that the Government lacked a definition of its own purpose. I was therefore trying—mischievously perhaps the Government might say—to assist them by putting in a proper purpose clause. But that was the purpose as they see it. This amendment says something about how I see the Bill and what I want to do about it. So in that sense I was not being inconsistent. It perhaps shows a difference between the Government's approach and my approach to Part 1.
	Like the Minister, I shall try to be brief after that explanation—it is not an excuse—to the noble Viscount. Unlike the Minister, I accept the analysis put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, her noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon and my noble friend Lord Lamont. It would have taken a Damascene conversion for either of us to resile from the position that we have taken. She will therefore understand why I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 163.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Leave out Clause 1.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in speaking to the previous group of amendments, I made it clear that I was putting forward to the House my arguments for both that group and this one, led by Amendment No. 6. This group seeks to delete from the Bill the whole of Part 1. I have given my arguments about why we feel that the European arrest warrant is not acceptable in its present form. When I have given the Minister the opportunity to speak, I will respond to her remarks, but I will not test the patience of the House further at this stage. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, everything has been said in relation to this matter. I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the noble Baroness and do not intend to trouble the House by saying any more.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I do intend to trouble the House by testing the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 165.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 7:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"PART 1 WARRANT: AUTHORITY TO PROCEED
	(1) When the designated authority receives a Part 1 warrant it shall make an application to the High Court or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session, for authority to proceed with the warrant under this section.
	(2) The court must make an order giving authority to proceed with the warrant under this Part if it is satisfied that the person in respect of whom the warrant is issued faces charges, or has been convicted of, an offence in a category 1 territory which involves conduct which, if it occurred in or outside the United Kingdom, would constitute an offence under the law of the United Kingdom.
	(3) In any other case, the court may make an order giving authority to proceed with the warrant under this Part of this Act if, having regard to all the circumstances, it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so.
	(4) A decision of the High Court in an application, or the Court of Session in an application, to make an order giving authority to proceed under this section shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal.
	(5) A person shall not be dealt with under this Part of this Act except in pursuance of an order made under subsection (2) or (3).
	(6) The Lord Chancellor shall make an annual report to both Houses of Parliament on the cases in which the High Court has exercised its discretion under subsection (3) to make an order giving authority to proceed.
	(7) The following provisions of this Part are subject to the provisions of this section."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 would introduce a new clause after Clause 1 entitled "Authority to proceed". Its objective is to provide a backstop power in instances in which extradition is requested for an offence that is not an offence in the United Kingdom.
	At Second Reading and in Committee, I rehearsed the reasons why we thought that this aspect of the Bill—the removal of the dual criminality requirement for the 32 generic offences set out in the European framework list—was of most concern to British citizens. I shall not repeat the arguments. In brief, we have a dual criminality requirement in Part 2 and a requirement for the involvement of the Secretary of State in every decision on extradition. That is the appropriate procedure for Part 2, but it should also apply to Part 1.
	As the Government will note, the amendment has changed substantially since Grand Committee. We listened to the criticisms made by some Members of the Committee. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, criticised the fact that, under our amendment, it would be the National Criminal Intelligence Service or, in Scotland, the Crown Office that would decide whether the warrant had been issued for an offence that had an equivalent in the UK. The noble Lord said:
	"So we have a dual criminality test that was previously a matter for the courts being applied by NCIS—or the Crown Office, in Scotland. That seems slightly curious".—[Official Report, 9/6/03; col. GC 5.]
	Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, had trouble with the referral to the Secretary of State of any extradition request to which dual criminality did not apply. His criticisms were based on the fact that it was unclear in what circumstances the Secretary of State would refuse such a request and that his decision would be subjective and could be subject to judicial review, something that we all try to avoid.
	We took both those points into consideration when we drafted the amendment. Noble Lords will appreciate that the key alteration that we have made is that every extradition request received by NCIS or the Crown Office must be referred to the High Court or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session. The court will then decide whether dual criminality applies and will grant authority to proceed. If dual criminality does not apply, the court may still allow the request to proceed, if it deems that that would be in the interests of justice, as subsection (3) says. The amendment picks up the wording employed in the Extradition Act 1989.
	The flexibility that the amendment would give the High Court would be a welcome addition to the Bill. It has been recommended to us by specialist extradition lawyers whom we consulted in the interim between Grand Committee and Report. In subsection (4), we have also added a provision that states that the final decision made by the High Court will not be subject to judicial review or appeal. We hope that that might counter the argument that any decision made about proceeding with an extradition request could fall foul of judicial review, causing further delay.
	Because of that new procedure, it is right that we should keep an annual report in the Bill. That forms part of the amendment. The onus would be on the Lord Chancellor or whoever replaces him to provide details of how that aspect of the Bill works. That would not be too hefty a task; there are roughly 100 extradition requests every year. Even with the increases that the Government anticipate, as a result of the simplification and extension of surrender procedures, it should not cause too great a problem for the Department for Constitutional Affairs or whoever takes on the work.
	Although the number of extradition requests is relatively small, it is right to get the procedure as good as it can be. That is why we have tabled an amendment that is different from the one that we tabled in Committee. We hope that it might find favour this time round. I beg to move.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I made it clear in Committee and earlier at Report stage that I am concerned about doing away with the rule of dual criminality. As I understand it, my noble friend's amendment would—while accepting that the House has accepted Part 1, relating to the European arrest warrant—require that the safeguard of dual criminality should still apply to any application from a category 1 country.
	My concern has always been that the list of 32 is very wide. Although it may be argued that the Bill should cover matters such as terrorism and murder, there are the lesser offences, and someone may be extradited back to a country for committing an act that would not have been a crime in this country. That is wrong. My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns is taking a fallback position, but the Government should seriously consider providing for the continuation of the safeguard of dual criminality.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I confess to being puzzled about the procedure intended by the amendment. Perhaps I may go through the amendment and the noble Baroness could interrupt me if I have got it wrong. The warrant is received from abroad by the particular magistrates' or sheriff's court designated to receive it. That court automatically makes an application to the High Court—let us consider England because I know rather more about it. Quite how it does that, I do not know. The concept of one court applying to another is unusual. Does it instruct counsel to make the application on its behalf? Anyhow, the warrant gets to the High Court.
	The High Court asks whether it is a dual criminality case. As I understand it, if it is, the High Court sends the warrant back to the magistrates' court to go through the remaining hoops in the act. If the High Court says that the case is not one of dual criminality, it then has to decide whether it is satisfied, in the interests of justice for the warrant to be proceeded with. Does that mean that the High Court then does the same procedure as happens at the moment; that is, it looks at all the evidence, decides whether the case is suitable for trial, looks at whether the man may be unfairly treated and looks at the stability of the case?
	If the High Court decides that it is in the interests of justice to do so, it sends the warrant back to the magistrates' court, which goes through the same hoops in the act. Seemingly, this is a matter which can go to any judge in the High Court. Whereas, under the present system, specialist magistrates deal with such cases, there will be varying judges who may come to different approaches on law. Since these cases are not subject to appeal, no one will ever be able to resolve those differences of approach. Could the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, indicate whether I have accurately summarised the effect of her amendment?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it seems that I must break the rules, but only because I am looking directly at the Woolsack. The rules state that on Report I may not speak. I can only introduce the amendment, then I can respond to it. Therefore, perhaps I may enlighten the Committee as to the procedure rather than answering the questions, which I shall be delighted to do when I am allowed to do so.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, despite the advocacy of the noble Baroness, we remain unable to support the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I think that it is worth repeating what I said in Grand Committee. My fear is, I think, the fear of many ordinary people in this country who have studied the Bill. A citizen from this country could go abroad and inadvertently commit a crime which he or she did not know was a crime in that country. It is possible that that could happen. The person would return home and there would be no way in which Ministers could defend them. They would be extradited; possibly simply to be held in a cell for some weeks while being interrogated. That is a worst-case scenario, but it could happen.
	The dual criminality rule is there to protect people when they have done something in another country, which is not a crime in this country, and that they were unaware was a crime. I must make that point as it is a very ordinary one which lawyers do not always enjoy because of all the technicalities involved.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she not realise that if a person goes abroad and innocently commits an offence and gets arrested out there, he or she will be tried for it? What difference does it make if a person gets on an aeroplane and comes back here before being arrested? In either case, on going to another country a person should find out its laws before disobeying them.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, quite simply, the difference is what happens to the person, who cannot be protected by their own country. I do not think that this big, happy family of Europe, which I hope will become bigger and happier, should have that effect. People simply cannot be protected politically by their own Ministers. That is the point. It is a big difference.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever, I am grateful for the courteous way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, argued her amendment with her customary clarity. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, got to the bottom of that clarity rather well and deconstructed the noble Baroness's amendment rather well too.
	We need to focus on what the amendment proposes. As we understand it, it would provide that whenever we receive a Part 1 extradition request, there must be a court hearing before the High Court or its territorial equivalent. That would be in addition to the main extradition hearing. From the outset, the Government's intention to simplify and speed up extradition procedures would be harmed. The noble Baroness made the point that she did not consider that a hefty task—there are approximately 100 extradition requests every year. That is not the point. It is not about volume; it is the length of proceedings with which we are concerned. We want to simplify and truncate the proceedings, but leave all the important protections in place.
	In effect, we would have not just one single hearing, we would have two separate hearings. We cannot see the advantage in that. Indeed, one of the weaknesses of the present system, which we are seeking to remedy, is that the authority to proceed stage requires the Secretary of State to consider each case twice for no good reason.
	At the extra hearing, the High Court would be required to determine whether the extradition request is concerned with conduct which would constitute an offence if it had occurred in the United Kingdom or over which the United Kingdom takes extra-territorial jurisdiction; that is, whether the dual criminality test is satisfied. That may sound simple. Clearly, for certain conduct—say, murder or rape—it is a relatively easy matter to determine that the United Kingdom has an exact equivalent offence. But that is by no means always the case.
	Noble Lords who have attended an extradition hearing—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has done exactly that as part of her preparation—would concede that, currently, a great deal of time is devoted to arguments about dual criminality. Questions about whether certain types of conduct—say, computer fraud—would be criminal in this country, and, if so, by virtue of which particular section of the Computer Misuse Act, can, and do, give rise to a great deal of argument.
	From the start, the extra new hearing could become long and complex. Certainly, both the requesting state and the person whose extradition has been sought would want to be represented at that hearing and to advance legal arguments. At the conclusion of the hearing, the High Court would be required to reach a conclusion as to whether the dual criminality test has been satisfied. That is obviously an important decision, so it is somewhat surprising to discover that there is no possibility of appeal.
	If the High Court decides that the dual criminality test is satisfied, all well and good; the case can proceed as normal. If the High Court concludes that the conduct would not constitute a United Kingdom offence, it has to decide whether the case should proceed. It does that by deciding whether it would be "in the interests of justice".
	Precisely how the court is meant to perform this test is not made clear. Courts exist to interpret the law and to adjudicate on disputes about it. How a court would determine where the interests of justice lay when it comes to bringing a person to justice who is accused of a crime in another country, I do not know. Again, it seems to be a crucial decision which warrants the right of appeal.
	For all those practical reasons we cannot support the amendment, which would prolong the extradition process and add time and expense. I am unsure what benefits would be achieved as a consequence.
	Perhaps I should say something about the broader issue of dual criminality because it has been a matter of concern for many noble Lords taking part in this short debate and, of course, it is one of the key aspects of the Bill. I think we need to be clear about what the Bill does and does not say. No one will be extradited in respect of conduct which occurs in the United Kingdom which is not contrary to our law. So those comments that have been made about people being extradited for writing a ludicrous article in the Sun newspaper or reading books about Biggles are fanciful in the extreme. What the Bill does provide is that if a person goes to another EU country and while there breaks the law of that country, they can expect to face justice, even if the United Kingdom would not regard the particular conduct as criminal.
	To be frank, I do not see how anyone can logically object to that. If a person breaks the law of another EU country and is arrested there and then, no one would complain about it. Why should such a person escape justice simply because they have fled across a border before being apprehended?
	This has to work both ways. We rightly expect all those in the United Kingdom to abide by our laws while they are here. Our courts would never accept as a valid defence the fact that the conduct in question was not criminal in the person's native country or the fact that the person did not know that the conduct was illegal here. So if a person from another country breaks our laws and then conveniently disappears, we would want to be able to bring that person back to stand trial.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, am I right in saying that no other country has yet implemented this agreement in their domestic law? Is that still the situation? If so, then what the Minister has said must be wrong.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding from our deliberations in Committee is that we explained that all member states are in the process of implementing the framework document. I believe it is the case that Spain is more advanced than are we in this regard. It has to be right that we should not seek to give sanctuary to those who have committed criminal acts in other EU member states.
	I apologise for having spoken at some length, but I respect the fact that this is an issue of concern. However, I think that we are right to insist on our approach, creating simpler and more clear-cut procedures. That is widely understood to be the best way forward.
	Obviously the noble Baroness has given a great deal of thought to her revised amendments, but while she has attempted to improve their quality, we take the points made in particular by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, during this debate; that is, that the amendments are confused in their extent and purpose. I turn once more to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. It is the case that all countries will implement this process by 1st January 2004. I shall correct what I said a moment ago and explain that both Spain and Denmark have already done so. We are on track and working together with our European partners. Having listened to my response, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, perhaps it would be more courteous if I begin by addressing the questions quite rightly put to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. One of the difficulties of debate on Report is that one is not able to respond immediately, as is the case in Grand Committee.
	The noble Viscount directed me to respond to two important questions. The first concerned the determination of the interests of justice and how that might be obtained. He asked whether the court would follow the procedure that it does now with the full process of bringing evidence, asking questions and so forth. My answer to that is yes, and it is obvious that the Minister assumed that in his response when he appeared to accuse me of wanting to prolong proceedings, but not to prolong them for long enough—I have not allowed for quite as many appeal procedures as he would consider consistent with my argument.
	What we are seeking to make clear here is that in the Government's drafting of the Bill there does not appear to be sufficient scrutiny of the reasons why someone is to be packed off overseas. We are not trying to prevent extradition, but we want to ensure that it takes place in the right way. The noble Viscount will appreciate that this amendment is one of many that seek to put into the Bill safeguards which in themselves may appear, when considered individually, sometimes a little defective. When they are taken together, however, we think that they would provide a valuable service.
	The noble Viscount also asked how much consideration would the court give. This is one of the difficulties of the Government's own drafting and, taking into account their responses to our questions put in Grand Committee, we do not feel that we have been given a sufficient explanation of exactly how the court is expected to gather the relevant information. Much has been left unsatisfied in that regard.
	The second matter directed to me by the noble Viscount concerned the proper question of whether to specify the judge. At present the job is done by specialists. He will appreciate that the district judges sitting at Bow Street court have particular expertise in this area. Magistrates consider these matters on a daily basis. Although there is no specialist training as such, they train one another within a system of continuous training. I imagine that it would be very difficult for other judges to take on such work.
	While I take the noble Viscount's point entirely, I would answer it by saying that the Government have not specified which judges in England shall hear these cases. Indeed, I understand that they intend to roll out extradition and the specialist expertise required to other parts of the country beyond Bow Street; I tabled amendments in Grand Committee on that point.
	Finally, I see that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is in his place on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. As a Scot he will appreciate that, in this case, the Bill is kinder to Scotland than it is to England. That is because in Scotland, the specific judge who will hear these cases—the office holder—is identified later in the Bill.
	Those are my responses to the noble Viscount. While of course I understand the explanation given by the Minister, I would argue that we are trying to put into the Bill an essential element of safeguard to which my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow has spoken. I endorse entirely his arguments. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 160.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord on the Woolsack that one vote should be deducted from those who were Not-Content on the ground that the Minister casting that vote was plainly out of order, as every person in the Chamber noticed.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble Lord on the Woolsack was entitled and allowed to speak on matters of order, he might do so. But as the rubric states that he is not, I cannot answer that.

Clause 2 [Part 1 warrant and certificate]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 1, line 15, leave out second "an" and insert "a judicial"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can be brief in moving this amendment and speaking to the other amendments in the group. I say that for two reasons: first, they are very simple amendments; secondly, I anticipate that they will be welcomed by all sides of the House.
	The amendments arise from points raised in Grand Committee, which were strongly put by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn and the principal opposition spokespersons from the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Parties—a fairly formidable team of opponents.
	The Government like to show that we see the sense and force of good argument in debate. For those reasons, we have brought forward our own amendments, which we are confident are robust and will do the job that they set out to do. We recognise the force of the argument and that is why I am bringing forward these amendments today. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 2, line 4, leave out "is accused" and insert "faces charges"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 15, and my noble friend Lord Lamont will speak to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13.
	These amendments address another issue that has been of the utmost importance to noble Lords during our discussions at Second Reading and in Grand Committee. The question is whether someone can be extradited to a category 1 territory for the purpose of interrogation after merely being accused rather than for the purpose of prosecution when there is already substantive evidence to warrant a trial. I note that in another place the Government and all other groups are on the same side on this matter. The Government tabled amendments to this clause which sought to clarify that a person should be extradited only if there was a case to answer if they were to be prosecuted. Our difficulty is that we feel that the clarification is not yet sufficient.
	The Minister has tried to assure us that the drafting of the Bill already guarantees that a person can be extradited only for the purposes of prosecution and not for evidence gathering. I will not repeat the matters discussed in Grand Committee, particularly at col. GC 24 of Hansard. There were objections from around the Committee pointing out that as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle, said earlier today, other jurisdictions differ considerably in the manner in which they take forward their criminal cases.
	Our other difficulty is that we feel there is a danger that our citizens could be extradited to jurisdictions where, instead of facing a trial immediately, as we would expect in this country, there could be some investigation or fishing expedition. Our amendments put the matter beyond all doubt by replacing "is accused" with "faces charges" and by expanding and defining the phrase,
	"for the purpose of being prosecuted".
	I know that my noble friend Lord Lamont will speak more fully on this matter and give some examples of where we think the problems lie.
	I believe that these amendments—mine in particular—deserve to be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 in my name, while supporting those of my noble friend Lady Anelay. The purpose of my amendments, as with hers, is to deal with what I think is a well known situation, whereby foreign magistrates have been known, quite frequently, to detain people purely for the purposes of questioning. They may detain people for quite long periods—no charges are ever laid and people are released. These amendments would make it clear that nobody should be extradited and fall victim to this practice in Europe. I would be grateful for the Minister's attention.
	That this is the practice is, I think, widely accepted. John Mortimer QC, a supporter of the party opposite, went out of his way in a recent article to warn people not to be arrested in Belgium, Italy or Spain because they might find themselves locked up and interrogated until a judge decided he had applied enough pressure to get out of them the information he wanted.
	This point is of concern not just to me and my noble friend—it has been highlighted by Justice, Liberty, the Law Society and Fair Trials Abroad. The situation arises where there are juges d'instruction, magistrates who are both investigators and prosecutors. A person may be accused of a crime but that does not mean that they will ever stand trial. Investigation can continue while the person is accused, held in prison and then dropped. This may go on for many, many months.
	The point was very succinctly and more clearly expressed by Mr Leolin Price QC in his comments on the code of practice on extradition. He said:
	"In some member states, arrest—although the legal system of that state may regard arrest as the beginning of the process of prosecution—is the beginning of an investigation; and the decision whether to charge the arrested person, or release him without taking the case to trial, will occur while the arrested person is in custody, perhaps for many months. In those circumstances the arrested person may never be, in our common law language, accused of the offence or any offence, and there may never be a charge clearly formulated".
	That is his opinion, and I think it is widely accepted. That is why some of us have had great worries that the legislation might result in people being accused and extradited.
	For that purpose, I asked a Written Question of the Foreign Office. It asked:
	"Whether they will publish a table showing the total number of British citizens in prison in each country in the European Union; and how many, if any, in each country have been held in custody for longer than three months (a) without being given bail and (b) without being charged".—[Official Report, 20/6/03; col. WA 200.]
	The House may be interested to know that the number of prisoners in EU gaols—I am sorry, I meant gaols in EU countries; we have not quite got to that stage yet—is 815. The number held over three months without being given bail is 275. The number held over three months without being charged was given, in the Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, as zero in each country. I seriously question that Answer.
	I tabled a further Question for Written Answer asking the Minister what was the definition of being charged. Did it simply mean that the person was accused or did it mean that the person had been told they would stand trial? The Answer I was given was that the Foreign Office was not aware of anyone having been held in gaol for three months without being charged. That is hardly an answer to the question, "What is the definition of being charged?". All I was given as an Answer was a repetition of the Answer I had already been given. In view of the seriousness of this issue—I will be surprised if other people do not, to some extent, share that belief—not giving the definition of "charged" was very inadequate.
	I then tabled a further Written Question, asking for an expansion of the table, whose figures apply to 31st March this year. I asked how many people had subsequently been released without being charged. That would have been a very good indicator of the definition of the word "accused" or "charged". The reply was that the expense of answering the Question would be disproportionate. I put it to the House that when we have such an important issue coming up in the Bill, that is not an adequate Answer. I know the Foreign Office is very busy, arranging the Queen's birthday party and attending EU functions, but it is not above answering very important questions.
	I then asked a further Question about whether we could have some information on the 12 people held in Belgium for longer than three months and what they had been charged with. Again, I was told that to find that out for 12 people would incur disproportionate cost. I question whether the Foreign Office can be carrying out its consular function if it does not have that information. I repeat that I regard that as a highly unsatisfactory Answer.
	That it is important whether someone is actually charged or just accused is indicated by the fact that the Irish have attached a declaration in relation to the European arrest warrant in Article 1(1). It states that the issuing authority with an arrest warrant must either give an undertaking that surrender is only sought for the purpose of charging the person with, and trying him or her for, the offence concerned, or a statement in writing that the person has been charged and a decision to try him or her for the offence concerned has been made.
	I hope that we can have a serious answer to a serious question, and I hope that the Minister accepts that I am asking it in a genuine spirit of trying to ensure that there are no miscarriages of justice.
	In Committee, the Government stated repeatedly that they were not aware of such an event happening. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that he had not been aware of any problems of someone since 1999 being extradited and not being prosecuted. He said:
	"I would be open to being educated if any Members of the Committee know of any examples of that being the case".—[Official Report, 9/6/03; col. GC 22.]
	I should like to give one example, although I do so with considerable hesitation, for a reason that I shall make clear.
	As Members of the Committee know, I have been interested in extradition for some time, and have been interested in the whole concept of the European arrest warrant. I first wrote an article about it in the Daily Telegraph in 2001. Having described what I saw as the dangers of extradition and its procedures, and the risk of being accused without being charged, it never occurred to me that someone I knew very well would actually get into that very situation. I would not want anyone in the House or elsewhere to feel that in making these remarks I was motivated by a financial interest or some special factor.
	I wish to refer to the case of a Mr Vahid Alaghband—someone who is known to the Government and has from time to time advised the Government and the Cabinet Office. He is a citizen of this country, and a dual citizen; he is an Anglo-Iranian, and has given advice to the Government on several occasions. When Mrs Mowlam was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he gave some advice to the Cabinet Office on her visit there. He has also given advice to the British Embassy in Teheran, and given considerable help. He is a prominent businessman in this country, and at one stage employed nearly 20,000 people. He appears in the Sunday Times rich list.
	I said that I would not wish my motives to be misunderstood. I have declared in the Register of Lords' Interests that I am a director of a company that Mr Alaghband owns. He is the chairman of it, but it is not a company that is involved in any way in the matter that is the subject of the legal dispute to which I wish to refer. I have no connection with those events beyond my connection with him. I am uneasy about raising this case, but I simply felt that it made no sense for me to speak in these debates without referring to something that, by a terrible coincidence, I have witnessed and watched, and which absolutely exemplifies what has worried me about the proposals from the word "go".
	Mr Alaghband was arrested in Switzerland, at the request of a German magistrate, when he was one of the main speakers at the Davos Conference in January. He was accused in connection with the take-over of an unquoted company in Germany, a company of which he owned 95 per cent. He is accused of breaking German law in the take-over of the company, on two grounds: a breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Those are the two precise accusations that have also been made against Mr Ackermann, the chairman of the Deutsche Bank, in relation to the take-over of Mannesmann by Vodaphone. Indeed, the magistracy in the Dusseldorf area has been extremely active in commercial law and in indicting large numbers of prominent German businessmen.
	What Mr Alaghband is alleged to have done—and indeed did—was to borrow money to buy a company and then use cash within the company to repay the loan. That is known as a leveraged buyout, which is largely not an offence in British or American law, but can be an offence in German law. None of that surfaced until there was a move by the company to make some redundancies and to move the headquarters of the company out of Germany to London, when allegations about breaking the law arose.
	I emphasise that I do not know the facts of the case, or the rights or wrongs; I have not been involved in any way and am not part of the company that was involved. I personally believe in Mr Alaghband; he is someone whom I deeply admire and respect. He is known to quite a number of people in this House. I was perfectly content and happy to write a letter supporting his application for bail in Switzerland, and a Labour Peer did exactly the same—believing, as I do, that he is an honourable man. I am not suggesting on this matter that the Government should do anything, or that they have failed to do anything. I simply wish to describe the legal procedures in this case. That is what concerns me at this point—not whether Mr Alaghband is innocent or guilty.
	Mr Alaghband was arrested in Switzerland. The British ambassador, who knew him personally, to try to facilitate bail said that he was prepared to guarantee that British embassies and consulates would not issue him another passport and that he would surrender his passport. That was not enough, and he was refused bail. He was then extradited to Germany, in conditions that I shall not describe as they are not relevant to what we are discussing, but which are highly alarming. He was taken to Germany and has now been there, in prison, for four months, having been six months in Switzerland. He has been in gaol for more than 10 months, and has not been charged. He has been accused, but the prosecutor has not made up his mind whether to recommend charges to the judge, and the judge has made no decision about whether he should be prosecuted.
	The important point is that Mr Alaghband has only been accused; that is the language that is used in the Bill. The word is "accused". In tabling our amendments, my noble friend Lady Anelay and I believe that a person should be extradited only if he is definitely going to be prosecuted. I know that the Minister will say that it is impractical to propose that people should be extradited only if they are going to be charged and stand trial within six months, and that if they do not stand trial within six months they should be returned. I can understand why she would say that would be impractical. However, regardless of that, the issue of someone simply being accused and not being charged is a very real one.
	The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that he would be educated if someone could provide an example, and I believe that I have provided an example of someone who has been in prison for a long time without actually being charged, and with no indication that he will be charged. The term has been extended for six months—and then possibly there will be another six months.
	An interesting point arising from the case, which is very relevant to the issue of extradition, is the contrast between the treatment of Mr Alaghband and the treatment of the chairman of Deutsche Bank, Mr Ackermann—a case that aroused enormous publicity and fears in the German business community. Mr Ackermann is also accused of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, but he is a Swiss citizen resident in Germany. He is not detained, because he is a well-known figure in Germany. A foreigner in Germany is in a much more difficult position; he is at a disadvantageous position because of the risk of flight.
	I put it to the noble Baroness that it is very unsatisfactory that someone can be detained in such circumstances. The Minister—not the noble Baroness, but the noble Lord, Lord Filkin—challenged us to come up with a single example, and I was horrified that I knew of one from my own experience. I think that the case illustrates that there is a very real problem in that people can be detained without being charged. The Answer to my Written Questions was, frankly, deplorable. The Foreign Office should have answered those Questions and indicated to me whether there are other situations like this in other EU countries. The case raises a fundamental question of civil liberties. Answering, or not answering, in such a cavalier manner is an abuse of Parliament. It shows that Parliament is being treated in a highly cavalier manner.
	I have discussed this case with a number of lawyers who say that this situation is not uncommon. One Queen's Counsel said to me, "If the Government think that there are no people in that situation they just ought to ask a few British lorry drivers, plenty of whom are languishing in prison while they are investigated for drugs or smuggling immigrants". What often happens in these cases, I am told, is that the accused—having been accused but not actually charged in our sense, and having been detained for many months—are given a sentence for the time they have already been in prison, in order to avoid their taking legal action against those who accused them. Enormous pressure is therefore put on people to strike a bargain with the judicial authorities.
	For all those reasons I believe that, if not the precise words in my amendments, some such provision should be included in the legislation, to ensure that people cannot be extradited from this country for the purpose of questioning. It would be all too easy for the extraditing country to use the word "accused" to indicate that it is operating "with a view to" a prosecution, as the Bill states, when they do not know whether they will prosecute. They may think they will prosecute, but they do not know. As Mr Leolin Price QC said in his evidence, that is the common way in which these investigating magistrates proceed, by continuing to investigate while detaining someone. If that someone is a foreigner, he is at a very considerable disadvantage compared with the locals of those countries.
	On the basis of their Answers when we have raised this issue, the Foreign Office and the Government seem not to be aware of this real and serious problem. I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect and come up with a more satisfactory approach.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I support at least the spirit behind these amendments, though which of them I know not. I suspect, in fact I know, that the Minister also supports the spirit behind them because she has consistently stated that it is clearly the Bill's intent that one shall be extradited under Part 1 only to face trial and not to be interrogated. However, while the noble Baroness said earlier that all the countries within the family of the EU share common values, their criminal procedures are undoubtedly different. They may be no worse, but they are different. Undoubtedly there are many countries where one is arrested expressly for the purpose of being examined so that someone can thereafter decide whether or not to try one.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says, everyone knows that British citizens are languishing in EU prisons and being interrogated. They have not got there by being extradited because, at the moment, before you can be extradited the country has to prove sufficient facts to put you on trial. Therefore, to have challenged the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, to come up with examples where someone has been extradited and then held for questioning was asking the wrong question. A fact that no one would dispute is that in many countries people are held without bail—if they are foreign, they are particularly likely to be held without bail—for the purposes of being extradited. If there is any loophole in the Bill that might allow extradition to be used for that purpose then that loophole must be blocked.
	It is important to remember that when one is interpreting the words "is accused of" and the warrant is issued with a view to his arrest, it is not a matter which will be decided de novo by the English court. The Bill requires a statement in the warrant by the foreign court that that is what they are doing. The English court is basically bound by that statement in the warrant. A foreign court, with its procedure, could perfectly legitimately say, "A man is accused"—as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has pointed out—"of the commission of an offence, and I am issuing a warrant with a view to his arrest and extradition for the purpose of his being prosecuted". They might, in the light of their procedure, find it perfectly legitimate to make such a statement, although an English court in the same situation would not have been able to make that statement because the words meant something different. That is why the words in this part of the Bill have to be superabundantly clear, that you can issue this warrant with this statement in it only if you say, "I've got my tackle in order. I've got the evidence to prosecute him. That is why he is coming here—to be prosecuted".
	I urge the Minister, at the very least, to say that she will take the matter away and devise a form of wording that is not capable of being innocently misinterpreted by a foreign court to achieve a result that no one, particularly the noble Baroness herself, wants to achieve.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I concur in everything that the noble Viscount said. He said it with a great deal more up-to-date knowledge than I have. However, I would add this. It may be that those who are not lawyers will not appreciate quite how different the continental system is from the British system. I particularly have that in mind as there was one occasion when I was a judge in the Queen's Bench Division when someone applied to me for a writ of habeas corpus which was directed to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, either to charge the arrested person or to release him. As the Commissioner did not deign to take any notice of my presence, I gave instructions at the lunch adjournment that the writ was to issue unless by two o'clock he had appeared and explained which he proposed to do. Come two o'clock there was not a sign. So I said, "Right; the writ will issue". Two minutes later, a perspiring sergeant arrived and said, "We have charged him".
	That is the difference. I forget the exact time period involved, but four or five days was probably the limit within which the accused had to be released or charged. When one compares that with the experience of the sort of case described by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, it really is staggering that the Minister can say that we all belong to the same judicial club.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said that he suspected that there was very little difference in spirit between the views of the Government and those of my noble friend Lord Lamont on this matter. I would suggest that probably everyone in the House at the moment agrees totally on what is desired.
	Before the Minister responds, I refer her to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in Grand Committee. He said:
	"It is clear that a Part 1 warrant under Clause 2(3)(b) can be valid only if it is for the purpose of a prosecution. A request from a member state to this country for extradition for the purpose of investigation or interrogation would not be lawful".—[Official Report, 9/6/03; col. GC 23.]
	Therefore, it seems to me that the only outstanding issue is whether the wording in the Bill which refers to "accused" is adequate, or whether, for the reasons given by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, the matter should be looked at again to produce words which clearly carry out the intention of both sides.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should make it clear—if I have not done so—that the warrant in the case to which I referred contained the word "accused". That was an extradition case from Switzerland to Germany.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, that confirms what I said. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, did not appear to be totally clear that the wording in the Bill met the aim. I say with respect to the Minister that the matter should be looked at again to ensure that the Bill's wording is adequate to achieve the end that everyone desires.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the noble Baroness replies, will she answer one simple question? Is there anything to guarantee that member states of the European Union will not in the future change their law for the worse in this respect?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we have had much discussion on this matter and on this particular clause. There is no doubt of the wording of Clause 2(3). I shall read it out so that I understand it. It states:
	"the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued is accused in the category 1 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the warrant".
	That is what the Bill states. However, Article 1 of the framework decision, under the heading, "Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it", states:
	"The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order".
	There is nothing there about people being accused of offences. The wording is quite clear. It states:
	"for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution".
	That means that the matter is presumably settled. It is not a question of extraditing a person who has been accused of something, but rather someone who is already guilty of something and is going to be tried. If I am wrong, it seems to me that either I have not read the Bill correctly or I have not read the framework document correctly because the two things do not seem to tie up. The Minister should insert the words of the framework document, which do not mention accusation. Then we could all get on to the next amendment and we would all be happy and our people would be safe from being accused and whipped over to a continental country and questioned by a magistrate for months on end. Why does she not do that?

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have so often said that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, talks rubbish. However, on this occasion I think that he is entirely right.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is very warmed by that generous support.
	I make it absolutely clear that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is right to say that the Government acknowledge the spirit of this amendment. Where we differ is that we say that the current drafting is clear. We looked very carefully at the difficulties that were raised in Committee to ensure that we reflected that which all noble Lords on all sides of the House wished to see secured. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for having tabled these amendments. I hope that I can put beyond doubt the Government's view of these provisions.
	I reassure my noble friend Lord Stoddart that the clarity with which he accurately assessed the framework document is reflected in the Bill that we now have. He is right to point out that surrender for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution was what everyone agreed to in that document, and nothing else.
	I am not persuaded by the merits of these amendments. We believe that they are unnecessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, said, the issue was quite properly debated at length in Grand Committee. My noble friend Lord Filkin put on record the assurance sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on that occasion. That assurance was correctly recited today by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow.
	I repeat that this Bill, as it is currently drafted, allows extradition for the purposes of prosecution only in accusation cases. The Bill does not allow extradition for the purposes of questioning, investigation or, of course, interrogation. My noble friend Lord Filkin agreed to reflect on further issues raised by Members of the Grand Committee. As I said earlier, we have done that. I think that we are clear on all sides about the objective.
	Although this is Report, it is worth looking at what the current extradition legislation says. Section 1 of the Extradition Act 1989 provides for extradition procedures where a person "is accused" of the commission of an offence. It goes no further than that on the subject and the phrase "is accused" is not qualified in any way. Your Lordships will know that that is the law that we have had for the past 14 years since 1989 and that it has not been an issue between ourselves and our partners. In contrast, the Bill is very explicit. It goes on to say that a warrant must have been issued,
	"for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence".
	Those additional words strengthen and underline the purpose of the warrant. As I say, this is more than we have at the moment and we are pleased to have had the opportunity to make that point very clear.
	I suggest that concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about fishing trips are simply unfounded. We are not aware of any such problems under the current system, where the test is far less clear, and we certainly do not anticipate them in future. I listened with great care to the example concerning Germany and Switzerland that the noble Lord gave. However, that certainly does not relate to any extradition, or experience of extradition, that we have had with our partners.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that one could not have had that problem in this country because one would have had to put before the court the evidence one had before one could secure extradition?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I just said, there is not a dissimilarity between the phraseology of "accused" and the form that has to be proven. In fact, we are making the provision stronger, not weakening it. As the noble Viscount will know, some people will seek robustly to interrogate these matters when they come before the court. They will know the precise nature of the framework document. They will also know what will be in the warrant. It will be our judges who will interpret the provisions.
	My next point is on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about others changing the law. Whatever is in the framework document, it is the Bill, if it comes into law, that will determine how matters are adjudicated on in our country. This is the law that will apply, and these are the provisions that will bite when the matter comes to be determined.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says, but our court will be presented with the warrant. It will be presented with a view to an arrest, for the purpose of being prosecuted. In such jurisdictions as I know about in one or two European countries, that may well lead to detention for a very long time before there is any sniff of a trial. Surely she knows that that happens. In Italy and Spain, as well as Germany, it is not unknown.
	The phrase,
	"for the purpose of being prosecuted",
	is a subjective formula, as would be quite honestly felt by those issuing the warrant abroad. Is the Minister really satisfied that we should have no guarantee about how long such a person on extradition under the Bill—I do not care about the present position—will be detained in gaol before they are brought to anything near a trial?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps it is right that I remind the House of the current position, although I hear what my noble friend Lord Wedderburn says about not wanting to dwell on that. Noble Lords will know that in 1991 the country had the fortune—I will not say whether it was good or bad—to have a government other than our own. Since that year, the position on extradition arrangements has been that EU countries have not had to provide prima facie evidence in the relevant regard. It is very easy for us to forget that position. As now, the term "accused" was in operation, but without the extra safeguard of making absolutely clear that it is for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence. It is on that basis that we can be confident on how the issues will be interpreted.
	I presume that if there were a problem with people being extradited for evidence-gathering or interrogation, it would have manifested itself fairly early on, and the Conservatives would certainly have sought to amend our extradition legislation, particularly if they held the views then that they hold now. We can draw some comfort from the fact that no attempts were made to amend our legislation, implying that the problems that the proponents of the amendments seek to remedy are unlikely to exist. We have had the provisions for 12 years. It is said that things can take a little time to ripen, but we would have had the problem by now if we were going to have it.
	We already have well established extradition arrangements with all the countries with which we will be involved through the European arrest warrant. None of them currently seeks extradition for the purposes of investigation or interrogation, and the European arrest warrant is being implemented across Europe on the basis of that understanding. I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Stoddart emphasised the basis on which the agreement for the European arrest warrant was made.
	I shall not take up the House's time with unnecessary detail, but there are already a number of instruments concerning mutual legal assistance and judicial co-operation with our international partners. The relevant authorities in each country have dedicated contacts and systems for such work. It is that route, rather than abuse of the extradition system, by which we co-operate with other countries on investigative work. If a warrant were issued for the purposes of investigation, which is clearly the point at issue, that warrant could not be certified or executed in the United Kingdom. It would not be a Part 1 warrant as defined in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 15, on which the noble Baroness touched briefly, demands that,
	"sufficient evidence has already been gathered to bring a prosecution and to commit to trial the person in respect of whom the warrant is issued".
	Presumably the only person who could judge that is the district judge, who would be required to examine the evidence against the person which had been gathered in the requesting state. That sounds very much like the reimposition of an evidential test. As I said, such a test has not been imposed on extradition requests from our EU or ECE partners since 1991.
	As the government in 1991 saw no problem in disapplying the prima facie requirement, we find it difficult to understand the rationale for reintroducing it now. That is what the noble Baroness suggests. We have asked about that before, but I do not recall having been given an adequate answer. I do not know whether she wishes to give one today. I think that all noble Lords would be interested to know if it really were being suggested that we reintroduce the prima facie evidential requirement for all our extradition partners and, if so, why.
	I shall deal briefly, I hope, with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. The same general points apply, and perhaps there is no need for me to repeat them. However, I would like to address his Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which would introduce a requirement that the requesting territory guarantee that the person be prosecuted within six months of his extradition. If that change were made to the Bill, we would be unable to make an arrest on any warrant unless it contained that guarantee, and it would not be a Part 1 warrant. The framework decision does not include that requirement, so it will be highly unlikely that any warrant will contain the appropriate guarantee. That would make us unable to extradite anyone to another EU member state.
	I am aware that the noble Lord has concerns about the European arrest warrant—that he would like to expunge it from the face of the Bill, if not of the world—and the nature of the agreement with our European partners. Nevertheless, I cannot believe that he really intends that our extradition arrangements with them should come to an entire halt. Perhaps I am being too optimistic. I am sure that your Lordships will understand that it would not be for the United Kingdom to impose such conditions unilaterally—that is what is being suggested—after the framework decision has been agreed.
	The noble Lord's third amendment goes one step further. It would mean that the statement would have to say that the person would be prosecuted within six months of his extradition. If he is not, it provides that he will be returned to the United Kingdom. As well as unilaterally imposing extra conditions on other EU states, the Bill would then unilaterally impose a sanction on the requesting state if it failed to meet the terms of the unilaterally imposed condition. The sanction would be that the person was returned to the United Kingdom to walk free.
	I acknowledge that the noble Lord has difficulties with the Bill and that he has tabled amendments which he believes will strengthen it. However, I do not agree that that is the result. The amendments would greatly weaken the Bill, weakening the provisions beyond all recognition. There are many reasons why the prosecution may legitimately take longer than six months to begin. For example, if the person were suffering some extreme illness the trial might have to be delayed. The person might quite legitimately ask for extra time to prepare his defence.
	The amendments make no allowance for such circumstances and, where they occurred, they would see the fugitive walk free. I would go further and say that the amendments would create a loophole which fugitives would undoubtedly seek to exploit. The sanction of unconditional release means that it would be in the fugitive's interest to delay the bringing of a prosecution for as long as possible, realising as he would that simply by delaying matters he would be able to get off without any punishment at all. It would be a wonderful incentive. I also have to ask what would happen if, in those circumstances, another country refused to return the person to the United Kingdom. He would be out of our jurisdiction, so presumably we would have to resort to other alternatives.
	Although views of the Bill may differ, I thought that all sides of the House had agreed that the law on extradition needed updating. I heard everything the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said about the Questions for Written Answer he had asked my noble friend Lady Symons and her stand that she had properly answered them. It is by no means cavalier for the Government on occasion to say that it would involve disproportionate cost to answer. Regrettably, answering some Questions involves the Government in considerable cost. I know, for example, that answering the noble Lord's June Question involved the Government in very considerable costs indeed. It is a position to which many governments of all complexions have had to resort when costs are disproportionate. All courtesy and propriety has been addressed. The noble Lord indicated further questions and I know that my noble friend Lady Symons, with her usual courtesy and propriety, will seek to give a full and proper answer to all of them.
	It would not be proper for me to comment on the case the noble Lord mentioned. I understand the reasons why he hesitated so long and hard and he may on reflection feel that he should have hesitated even longer. But I believe the latter two amendments would create more difficulties than solutions. I have sought to explain that the Bill imposes a much more stringent test than we have at the moment. The words,
	"for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence"
	are new and far more explicit than anything that can be found in previous extradition legislation. The much looser formulation that we have at the moment has not given rise to problems, so I fail to see why it is anticipated that a much higher test will do so.
	I really do not believe that we should be contemplating re-introducing the prima facie evidential requirement for Council of Europe extradition partners. I hope that I have said sufficient to convince your Lordships that we need to be satisfied with what we have done so far. I have given great thought to everything that has been said and we believe that the balance is now about right.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. As I understand what she says, if another EU country honestly issues a warrant in the terminology of the Bill, but it can be shown that in practice the words have a different meaning to that used by its judicial authorities and that someone is being arrested with a view to seeing whether it is possible to prosecute him, it would not in the eyes of the Government be a European arrest warrant. If that is right, will it be open to the British courts, faced with the document which prima facie complies, to investigate whether it does comply on the ground?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Lord says and perhaps in reply I may explain how the system will work. The arrest warrant will come through the usual official channels, as has been the case for the past n-number of years. Two methods of working are conducted between ourselves and our European partners. The first is in relation to investigative and other work where we co-operate and work together. The second is when approved warrants come through the correct channels and it is clear that they are compliant. If such a warrant has come through the proper channels and is compliant, it will be safe and satisfactory for the courts to work on the premise that it is a proper warrant issued pursuant to the proper procedures.
	Furthermore, there was concern in relation to a number of countries about how the European arrest warrant would work in practice. For instance, while I was in the Lord Chancellor's Department I worked with my Spanish colleague, Jose Maria Michavila, to try to get the procedure that we will each adopt right. We looked at practices such as video conferences which take place between our country and our partners to see whether we could produce an exemplar of how procedures will work in practice. Whether all our European colleagues then want to emulate the practical arrangements we have made between us, we must wait to see.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, is not the short answer to the noble and learned Lord that if the warrant makes the statement in the words of the clause, it will not be open to the court to question what the issuing court meant by them and what its intention was?

Lord Roper: My Lords, we are now at Report stage and noble Lords are limited to interventions before the Minister sits down.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I will indicate immediately that much has been said by noble Lords which causes me to believe that I must take this whole group of amendments seriously. I shall look at them between now and Third Reading to decide which to bring back for the House to consider.
	I also give the Government a little more leeway for another reason. In Grand Committee I asked them specific questions about the code of practice and its drafting. That drew attention to the Government's concern that there might be confusion when the police tried to exercise their duties in relation to these powers. At col. GC9 of Hansard for 10th September, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, the then Minister, said that he would take away the thrust of my questioning and return to the matter when the Government were able to produce a draft in response to all the replies to their consultation. I appreciate that that consultation concluded only in September and that in October we now have some of the replies in print. Therefore, I do not in any way criticise the Government for failing to come forward today with a response.
	However, there is an underlying concern about the effectiveness of these powers. I intend to give the Government every opportunity at Third Reading to persuade the House that there is sufficient clarity for it not to be concerned. We are all on the same side with regard to that.
	The Minister asked me why we accept that the 1989 Act, which deals with, for instance, procedures on placing charges, prima facie requirements and abolition, works. As she knows, I expatiated at Second Reading and in Grand Committee on why knocking away all the major supports and safeguards in Part 1 meant that it was not acceptable also to knock away the support of prima facie requirement.
	There is much to consider and I shall do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 10 to 15 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 2, line 15, leave out from "including" to end of line 17 and insert "a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person, the nature and legal classification of the offence and the applicable statutory provision;"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It focuses on the information which must be contained in the arrest warrant as set out in Clause 2(4)(c). When we put forward the amendment in Grand Committee, we did so together with an alternative proposal that the content of a warrant must conform to the model arrest warrant appended in the framework decision. Since then, we have not only listened carefully to what noble Lords have said but we have had discussions outside the House. In particular, we listened to the Minister's examples of how the Bill already incorporates requirements to be contained in the model warrant. I had particular discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, before bringing forward this joint amendment, which we consider should be the best way forward.
	Subsection (4)(c), as was pointed out to us by Liberty, paraphrases Article 8(1) of the framework decision. We agree with Liberty that there are dangerous consequences in paraphrasing the article, especially as certain criteria are omitted from the list of what should be included on the warrant. The framework decision states at Article 8(1) that the warrant should contain information such as the following: the identity and nationality of the requested person; the name, address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address of the issuing judicial authority; evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the scope of Articles 1 and 2; the nature and legal classification of the offence, particularly in respect of Article 2; a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person; the penalty imposed if there is a final judgment or the prescribed scale of penalties for the offence under the law of the issuing member state if there is no judgment just yet; and, if possible, other consequences of the offence.
	Our objection is that the Bill itself requests scant information. It asks for the person's identity, details of any other warrant for his arrest, how long his sentence would be if convicted, and then—the catch-all—
	"particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence and the time and place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence".
	We believe that the drafting of the Bill should be clearer than that. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on this side of the House support the amendment. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Goodhart has attached his name to it. I stress that the amendment reflects what is already included in the annex to the framework agreement, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The words are directly taken from that document, which sets out the form of the warrant.
	Why should that cause a problem? We have something that is explained in ordinary language. Is it not better to use those words rather than paraphrase the words in subsection (4)(c)? In trying to legalise the language, the Government, as has rightly been pointed out, have missed out certain parts of the wording—particularly those relating to the legal basis. We backed this issue in an amendment in Grand Committee and we back it again.
	I read very carefully the reply given in Grand Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. He may have complied with the framework decision but perhaps I may spell out what he said. He said that the matter of identity is covered by virtue of Clause 2(4)(a) and that the matter of judicial information is covered by Clause 2(4)(b). He then said that the sentence which may be imposed is covered by virtue of Clause 2(4)(d). He went on to refer to information about convictions in absentia being supplied in Clause 20, and he then went on to talk about information on 32 generic offence categories being supplied to comply with Clauses 10 and 63.
	Is that all necessary? In the amendment we ask only that all the requirements be included. I believe that most people find this legalised jargon difficult to understand. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Baroness that she reconsiders the matter carefully. I feel that the amendment deals with much of the problem and it is very much in line with the framework document.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I always take to heart accusations from the noble Lord about legalised jargon. If I may respectfully say so, one striking aspect of this Bill is that the draftsman has been rather clear and the drafting is simple.
	I am very grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment so that we can explore the interesting area of what information should be contained in an incoming Part 1 warrant. Clause 2(4) of the Bill sets out—in Part 1 accusation cases—what information an incoming warrant needs to contain, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord both made clear. However, the information in question is: details of the identity of the person whose extradition has been sought; particulars of the domestic arrest warrant that has been issued for the person in question; details of the offence of which the person is accused, including details of the time and place where the offence was committed; and details of the penalty that could be imposed.
	I am sure that your Lordships will see why that is all relevant information which should be included in any warrant. The amendment seeks to change part of the wording of Clause 2(4) and, in particular, it seeks to remove some of Clause 2(4)(c) and insert substitute wording. It is not difficult to see where the proposal has come from. I believe that it has been lifted almost directly from the framework document, and I can understand why it has come from there.
	However, your Lordships will see that, in trying to craft the Bill, we have not simply filleted the framework document and put it straight into our law. We have had to frame it so that it is consistent with our own structure and understanding of the law to try to make it clear. We thought that the draftsman had been rather successful. Indeed, phrases such as "the degree of participation" of the wanted person in the offence and the "legal classification" of the offence do not sit very neatly in a piece of UK legislation because it is outwith the way that we would normally deal with these matters. As I said, we are not obliged to copy the wording of the framework decision.
	I listened carefully to what both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said. I think that we have probably got it right. But I am happy to take away the matter and look at it again, particularly in relation to the details of the law of the requesting country which the person is alleged to have broken.
	To be absolutely frank, I am not sure that we shall return with an improvement to the wording because I tend to think that this is, if I may say so somewhat colloquially, fine. If the noble Lord and the noble Baroness really want us to reconsider the matter, we shall do so. However, I anticipate that I may come back saying that we have done our homework in the best way that we can and that we have marked it 10 out of 10, although others may take a different view.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her customary openness and honesty in her responses, which we always value. I appreciate that the Government feel that the draftsmen have it right. The Government are saying, "We are not slavishly copying the framework decision; we are trying to achieve some kind of consistency throughout". Of course, I can then point the Minister to Amendment No. 328 in the Government's name, which will impose on the framework list of 32 offences the European general wording that has been agreed.
	We are saying that we consider it appropriate for the proper wording to be put on the face of the Bill. We accept that the Government have made considerable progress in the way that they have defined this part of the Bill. However, I have to say that, for the safeguards that we believe are necessary, the progress is not sufficient. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 106.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
	Page 2, line 42, leave out paragraph (a).
	Page 2, line 46, leave out paragraph (a).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 3, line 2, leave out "Order in Council" and insert "order made by the Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 3, line 3, leave out "Order in Council" and insert "order"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
	Clause 3 [Arrest under certified Part 1 warrant]:

Viscount Bridgeman: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 3, line 27, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of this section—
	"constable" shall be a constable of the United Kingdom, and "customs officer" shall be a United Kingdom customs officer."

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 193 and 203.
	The amendments focus on the definition of who is entitled to make an arrest or a provisional arrest under Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. Our debate on those issues in Committee was quite productive, but I am still not completely satisfied with the drafting of the Bill as we now have it.
	Initially my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts put forward a series of amendments aiming to ascertain whether Royal Parks Police and the other types of police as listed in Section 86(3) of the Police Reform Act 2002 would be eligible to make an arrest under a warrant. The problem with the clause as it is drafted is that there is no clear definition of "constable". The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was able to satisfy us in part, and the omission of "customs officer" from those allowed to make a legitimate Part 2 arrest has been rectified by a later government amendment.
	It is clear that we all agree that non-UK constables should not be allowed to arrest our citizens and that all extradition requests should be carried out using our police. However, we are still concerned that the Bill as drafted leaves a loophole and does not provide an adequate safeguard to stop a foreign constable making an arrest.
	Since the Bill was first printed in the Commons, we have made progress on Clause 3, but subsection (2) still reads:
	"The warrant may be executed by a constable or a customs officer in any part of the United Kingdom".
	Our amendments would amend Clauses 3, 5, 72 and 74 to make it crystal clear that "constable" and "customs officer" mean United Kingdom constables and customs officers. I do not think that the assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that the common-law definition of "constable" would bar any foreign constable from making an arrest for extradition is a satisfactory guarantee. Our amendment would put the question beyond any doubt. I hope the Minister will look at it with some sympathy. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I put on the record at the outset that I continue to be puzzled by this amendment. I am puzzled because I thought we had satisfied noble Lords opposite. I shall take them very carefully through the issue. They said they were satisfied.
	In another place, the issue of who could carry out an arrest in this country was a big bone of contention, and there was much champing on it. The Opposition went so far as to suggest that the Bill would allow foreign police officers and other foreign law enforcement personnel to come to the United Kingdom to carry out arrests; and they were not having any of it. That has never been the Government's intention and we amended the Bill in another place to put the matter beyond any possible doubt.
	Indeed, in Grand Committee, the official Opposition positively bridled at the suggestion of foreign police officers enforcing a European arrest warrant in this country. Indeed, it might assist your Lordships if I reminded them what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said during our discussions on the point. He said:
	"The Government say that they have no such plans. I made it punctiliously clear . . . that we never said that the Government had any such plans . . . It is clear beyond peradventure that the Minister and his colleagues elsewhere in government do not wish non-UK constables to arrest people in this country".—[Official Report, 18/6/03; col. GC 306.]
	So the noble Lord accepted the position. He made it quite plain that he believed we were absolutely right in saying that we had no intention of enabling non-UK police personnel to come to this country and conduct an arrest. So, if it was accepted then, why not now? Therefore I ask: why are these amendments necessary? I reiterate my puzzlement.
	It is possible that noble Lords opposite may argue that, while they accept that the Government have no intention of letting foreign police officers exercise arrest powers in this country, we cannot be certain about future governments and that the drafting of the Bill might leave some ambiguity.
	Let me try to demonstrate why that is not the case. Perhaps I could deal with the amendments in turn, starting with Amendments Nos. 27 and 40, which are concerned with Part 1 of the Bill. Part 1 provides that a European arrest warrant can be executed by any constable, customs officer or service policeman. The term "service policeman" is clearly defined in the Bill, and as these amendments are not concerned with service police officers I assume that the Opposition are happy with that.
	Similarly, the term "customs officer" is very clearly defined in Clause 212(6), so I hope the Opposition will accept that the parts of their amendments dealing with customs officers are unnecessary. No foreign customs officer could fall within the definition found in Clause 212.
	I turn to the term "constable". The office of a constable has been established in common law for a very long time. On appointment, every constable in the police force must,
	"be attested as a constable by making the appropriate declaration".
	The use of the phrase "a constable" is common in other legislation, for example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. No foreign police officer could make the necessary declaration or be attested, so there can be no possibility of a foreign police officer falling within the term "constable".
	Therefore, I suggest that these amendments are unnecessary. Moreover, if we seek to give a statutory definition to the term "constable" we could call in to question all other legislation using the term and on the basis of the common law definition. That is my answer to the question: what harm would the amendments do? I repeat, this would be a step out of line with precedent, which is acknowledged and accepted by noble Lords opposite, and it would, I argue, provide lawyers with a field day as they sought to challenge the myriad other pieces of legislation—many of which were enacted by the party opposite when in government—which do not contain a statutory definition of "constable". This is a dangerous road to go down for noble Lords opposite. We have never seen fit to define that term. That has not given rise to any problems, ambiguity or challenge. I do not see why we should change our practice now.
	I should put on record one other matter which was covered in recent correspondence sent by my noble friend Lady Scotland to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, suggested in Grand Committee that the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill contains a definition of "constable". In fact, it does not and, like this Bill, it relies on the common law definition.
	I wish to turn briefly to Part 2 of the Bill, which Amendments Nos. 193 and 203 seek to change. There the powers of arrest are conferred on a constable or any person to whom a warrant issued by a UK judge is directed. There is a simple, well-tried and tested reason why we have gone for that formulation. Virtually identical wording can be found in Section 8(5) of the Extradition Act 1989. I can report that that has not given any difficulties; nor has there ever been any suggestion that a UK district judge has ever contemplated directing a warrant to anyone other than a UK law enforcement officer.
	The arguments in Part 2 are unnecessary and potentially harmful for the reasons that I have given. I reiterate that the Bill does not allow overseas police officers to carry out arrests here; nor does it contain any ambiguity. So, from our perspective, there is no need to amend the Bill; not least because to do so would call into question many existing statutes concerned with the police service. I hope that this time the noble Viscount can assure his colleagues that we have got it right, and that he is safe in withdrawing the amendment and not moving the others grouped with it.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord gave a statement about the definition in various statutes of the word "constable". Does the same apply to Scotland?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there has been a very useful nod from the corner of the Chamber. I can confirm that that is the case.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for that very comprehensive reply. He is right in saying that our only point at issue was whether the Government's intention was correctly and permanently reflected in the drafting of the Bill. I shall look very carefully at what the Minister has said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.32 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Patients' Forums (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 2003

Earl Howe: rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 14th August, be annulled (S.I. 2003/2123).

Earl Howe: My Lords, I begin by making it clear that neither of the Motions standing in my name has been moved with a view to dividing the House. Nevertheless, the regulations provide us with an appropriate opportunity to debate some of the serious concerns relating to patients' forums and to the emerging shape of patient and public involvement more generally.
	At the outset, it is only right for me to give the Government credit where it is due. When we last debated the issues, I expressed my grave disappointment that there was to be a gap of three months between the abolition of community health councils and the establishment of patients' forums—a gap that would make a mockery of the Government's promise of a managed transition from the old system to the new. Since then, the abolition of CHCs has been put back by three months. That was clearly a welcome decision. In addition, I acknowledge the efforts of the Department of Health to consult as widely as it could on the content of the regulations and its willingness to make changes in the light of the comments received.
	There are, however, two pivotal issues that the regulations fail to address, and on which the success of patients' forums depends. The first is the infrastructure from which patients' forums will operate. The second is the relationship between patients' forums and other associated organisations. We all believed, when we debated the legislation last year, that the precise way in which the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health would fulfil its role of providing staff, funding and premises to patients' forums would be set out in regulations. Instead, the regulations effectively give the commission a carte blanche discretion to set about those tasks however it wants.
	That, I contend, is not within the spirit of the Act. In practice, we see that it is leading to results that can only be viewed as highly regrettable. On 6th December 2001, Parliament was assured by Hazel Blears that there would be a pathway for staff of CHCs who want to take part in the new system. Nobody understood that to mean a guaranteed meal ticket. But the benefit of such a pathway would be that the expertise and knowledge of CHC staff would not be lost to the local community. Instead, we are now witnessing a wholesale contracting out of the staff support function to the voluntary sector, to be called local network providers.
	That decision has, in effect, left CHC staff out in the cold, unless they are prepared to compete in the job market for short-term contracts in small voluntary sector bodies—a far cry from their present terms of employment with the NHS. In other words, there is no pathway for those experienced staff. The commission is recreating the very thing that Ministers told us would be stripped out of the new system—the middle layer of administration standing between the commission and local communities.
	There was absolutely no consultation about the decision. It runs contrary to the picture painted by Ministers in Parliament that patients' forums would directly employ their own staff who would be men and women provided by the commission. It is certainly not the managed transition that was promised so as to make the best possible use of the local knowledge base.
	As it is, many of the local network providers have no connection whatever with the communities for which they are to be responsible. Scope, based in Birmingham, is covering forums in south London. The College of Health, based in east London, is covering Essex—rather, it was going to, but it is now going into liquidation.
	Local community knowledge for patients' forums is not just an optional extra; it is vital to counterbalance the increasing trend in the NHS towards larger provider trusts, some of which cover several local authority areas. Some network providers, although expert in one field, have no expertise in others. With the best will in the world, Age Concern Harrow is hardly geared up to provide support on mental health, maternity or children's services. I wonder, too, about the Scouts, another local network provider. Some staff will be answerable to more than one forum at a time. Different forums will find that they have different levels of support, some with a reasonably good understanding of local needs and others with practically none.
	All that spells one thing: a less than satisfactory structure for supporting patients' forums. It is a recipe for patchiness and complexity. It is also a recipe for bureaucracy, as each local network provider will be governed by a contract that will have to be managed. That is the exact opposite of the consistency, evenness and simplicity that we were promised when we debated the legislation.
	We were told that ICAS would be delivered through every PCT patients' forum. That now looks unlikely to happen until 2005. Meanwhile, the PALS service is tasked with advising patients on how to access ICAS. ACHCEW has just surveyed 100 PALS services by telephone. Only 54 of the 100 received a direct personal response; others got an answerphone or no reply at all. Only 27 out of the 54 were able to direct the caller to the ICAS helpline, which started on 1st September. The survey reflected only those trusts that have a PALS service; many still do not.
	We were also promised one-stop shops. It is both surprising and disappointing that the regulations do not cover that. Whether we will get one-stop shops remains to be seen, but the auguries are not promising, judging by the very small offices generally occupied by the network providers. A one-stop shop requires the right kind of premises in the right place. Many CHC premises are ideal for the purpose, but the commission shows no signs of wanting anything to do with them. That is a wasted opportunity and a giant waste of public money. Many CHC premises are newly refurbished and at high street locations, with disabled access and private rooms for confidential discussions. Yet a number of CHC premises are now empty and boarded up. Others, including their equipment, are being made over willy-nilly to the NHS. Others, again, are to be offered to house clearance traders.
	The local network providers are being largely left to deal with the whole matter. I hope that, in due course, the Minister will be able to answer a Written Question from me on the total cost of the abolition of CHCs and the setting-up of the new system, including premises disposal and redundancies. When that figure is available it will stand as a measure of what might have been. In other words, it will be a measure of the properly managed transition that we were promised but have not had. Because the contracts governing the local network providers are managed by the commission, it is very hard to see how the forums themselves will have any control over the quality of service that they deliver. If the forums are unhappy with the support that they are getting, they have no power to question the commission about it, and the commission under the regulations need do absolutely nothing. Yet the forums will be performance managed by the commission as if they did have control over their staff support.
	It is true that, under Regulation 8(2), staff in the local network providers must work to the direction of the forums, but the forums themselves have no contractual leverage over the providers and no means of ensuring that they receive a fair share of time and attention from them. If a local network provider is supporting 33 forums—as was going to be the case with the College of Health—what can a forum do if it feels that it is getting short shrift? All 33 forums will be competing for the same limited pool of staff.
	The remaining uncertainty is about how patients' forums are meant to work together. We debated that issue extensively during the passage of the Bill. Patients' forums need to work together for many reasons, not least to inform the work of the overview and scrutiny committees. There therefore needs to be a coherent joint committee of patients' forums relating to the same area. Equally, large NHS trusts ought not to find that they are being pulled in different directions by four or five PCT patients' forums as well as their own. There has to be a mechanism for getting all those patients' forums around a table, but there is nothing in the regulations that brings clarity to this issue. Co-operation is mentioned but is nowhere defined.
	There will be an awful lot of forums about. One can easily postulate that a single PCT patients' forum will have to co-operate with an ambulance trust forum, all the forums of the relevant specialised trusts, the forums of the acute trusts from which its PCT commissions services and forums in neighbouring areas. One way or another that is a great deal of co-operation, and if it is to be done well—or done at all—it will require the right degree of support and co-ordination by staff. Frankly, it is difficult to see how such support can be provided by half a full-time post per forum, which in many instances is what is in prospect.
	I am sorry to put the Minister on the spot in this way. He was not involved in the legislation or the setting up of the commission and I do not blame him personally for what is now happening. However, ministerial undertakings in both Houses of Parliament given in good faith have not now been met. There has been no managed transition because CHCs have been allowed to disband early and their premises are being disposed of. There has been no harnessing of the skills of CHC staff, as we were promised there would be, and those skills have therefore been lost to the NHS. Not one member of CHC staff has been transferred directly to the commission.
	We were promised an ICAS system delivered through every PCT patients' forum. There is a long way to go before we can be confident that patients can access it, and the promised one-stop shop that we debated so many times in this House is still a pipe dream.
	This is a very poor start to an important new system. I look forward to any words of comfort that the Minister feels able to give. I hope that he will be able to take away with him the concerns that I have raised and examine them urgently. I beg to move.
	Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 14th August, be annulled (S.I. 2003/2123).—(Earl Howe.)

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise to support strongly what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in his Motion. I thought, if anything, that the noble Earl was quite generous in his opening remarks. However, following them he made a devastating indictment of government policy on patient and public involvement and the implementation of that policy. It has been a sorry tale of government commitments not honoured and of a Gothic divide-and-rule architecture of patient and public involvement. It strikes me that the Government are really rather fond of Gothic architecture—we see that in the opening parts of the latest Bill.
	It seems to be a divide-and-rule policy of the Government to split existing institutions in the NHS asunder in a way that makes them unworkable. The ramshackle implementation of even that architecture has been wondrous to behold. I am delighted see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his place. It is rather like him returning to the scene of the crime. He was very strong in his justification of the current architecture and I hope that he has some qualms when he sees the way in which that has been implemented.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, went through a series of issues such as the absence of managed transition. There has been no managed transition between CHCs and patients' forums or between ACHCEW and the commission. As I understand it, there has been absolute opposition by the commission to managing that transition. The Department of Health has reneged on its commitment to establish one-stop-shops—the number of quotes that I could present to the Minister on the subject are legion. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in reply to a Written Question said:
	"Patients' forums in primary care trusts will act as one-stop shops by advertising locally their presence and the services they provide in person, over the phone or over the Internet and by being based in premises that are accessible".—[Official Report, 4/11/02; col. WA 60.]
	That is a very clear commitment.
	On the commitment to staffing, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said:
	"Staff will be provided by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health to primary care trust patients' forums".—[Official Report, 4/11/02; col. WA 60.]
	What do we now see? Local network providers, which involve a very new different concept that was not heralded in ministerial statements at all.
	We now find that the Charities Commission has had referred to it the whole issue of whether it is proper for charities to act in this way. We await the outcome of that with considerable interest.
	On the commitment on ICAS, Hazel Blears said:
	"To summarise, every NHS trust and PCT will have a patient advocacy and liaison service, ensuring that concerns are dealt with before they become a serious problem, and Patients' Forum, ensuring that the local public have a vehicle to express their view about matters relating to health".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E; 22/5/02; col. 325.]
	That has not happened.
	On the transfer of skills and knowledge, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made a clear point. David Lammy MP said:
	"The Government takes the view that community health council (CHC) staff have valuable skills which are important to the smooth running of the National Health Service".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/12/02; col. 610W.]
	That smooth transition has not taken place.
	A great many commitments have not been fulfilled. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, described the survey carried out by ACHCEW—and it is a good thing that we still have ACHCEW in order to at least carry out surveys at this juncture. We will not have it for very much longer. It carried out surveys in April and October 2003. April 2003 was a year after PALS were meant to have been set up in every trust, and October 2003 was 18 months after that date. The results in April 2003 were totally unsatisfactory as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned, and the results in October 2003 demonstrated absolutely zero improvement. That is the bottom line of that survey—totally unsatisfactory.
	I have a few minor questions. I could probably go on for about 20 minutes on all the regulations, but, perhaps unusually, I am not going to torture the Minister. However, I am going to go through a number of the different regulations. I turn first to No. 2124—The Patients' Forums (Functions) Regulations. Why must patients' forums have to have regard to any advice given by the commission? That seems a pretty heavy hand. What is meant by "shall have regard"? Is that a directive? Does it effectively mean that patients' forums have to respond in those circumstances?
	We have issues about access under Regulation 3. It is unfortunate that access for patients' forums to prison health services and health facilities in detention centres for asylum seekers is not explicitly included in the regulations. Also, as we know, we have a mixed economy. NHS patients will be treated in private hospitals and clinics. I see no right of access there.
	The Department of Health has strengthened Regulation 5 by creating a requirement for NHS bodies to provide information within 20 working days, but there is no mention of the quality of the information or of information required on national and regional NHS services, prison health services, private providers, local authorities or primary care providers.
	Regulation 6 deals with restrictions on the disclosure of information. There is no provision that deals with the sensitive issue of doctors or nurses who may have been referred to the National Clinical Assessment Authority or are otherwise regarded by the trust as having displayed weaknesses in their practice. It should be possible for patients' forums and trusts to share sensitive information in that way.
	Regulation 7, relating to referral to the overview and scrutiny committee, is too narrow and weak. It represents a missed opportunity. It should have included general encouragement to refer any key issues to the OSC, and it should have referred specifically to Section 19(2) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, which allows the patients' forum to refer any matter to the overview and scrutiny committee concerning the health of local people. That signpost is not in the regulations.
	Regulation 8(3) fails to include overview and scrutiny committees in the list of organisations to which the patients' forum should send reports on service reviews.
	SI 2003/2123, the Patients' Forums (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 2003, is equally full of flaws. The bit relating to the membership of patients' forums, NHS trusts and PCTs is, perhaps, the worst bit of the regulations. We have a basic patients' forum of seven members, and we have a PCT patients' forum of, potentially, nine. There are provisions about sub-committees involving two members. That is a very small base on which to build a patients' forum. What happens if members of a patients' forum are away or on holiday or are sick? Instantly, we are emasculating the power of patients' forums. The small size envisaged for patients' forums is a major problem.
	Regulation 3(1) does not require that the powers will be exercised. I will be happy if the Minister can give an indication that they will be required. The regulation says that the patients' forums "may" appoint a chair; it does not say that they "shall" appoint a chair. Given that, in Regulation 8(2), it is the members who are described as directing staff provided by the commission, the risk of confusion could be a major problem. How can the members exercise proper control collectively over the staff provided for the forum?
	I mentioned the problems with sub-committees. They could be major problems. Even in Regulation 10, which relates to meetings and proceedings, there is no requirement to hold a minimum number of meetings. It appears that a patients' forum can meet whenever it wants and with a regularity chosen by the members. On the basis that the Bill that we are debating so frequently and nocturnally appears to envisage the withering away of patients' forums, Regulation 10 is an open invitation to have the patients' forum meet rarely, if at all.
	I have said enough to demonstrate not only the flaws in government policy but the sheer lack of commitment demonstrated by Ministers to genuine patient and public involvement and the flaws that are inherent in the regulations.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this brings us back to the happy days when we discussed the setting up of the new arrangements and the abolition of community health councils. I probably delight more in Gothic architecture than the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I remain convinced that the proposals and the new structure will produce a greater scale of patient involvement and more effective handling of patient complaints than we ever had from community health councils. The evidence is that, over 30 years, some did excellent work, while others did not. I remain convinced that the establishment of patients' forums and of powers of independent advocacy will lead to a stronger, more user-friendly NHS.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned statements made by Ministers, including me, during the passage of the Act that set up the new arrangements. Those statements were made in good faith. It was my firm intention that the arrangements would be established in the way that I described. I regret that, as it turned out, the arrangements were, unfortunately, not made in time. I apologise to noble Lords for that and accept any responsibility that I must take for that situation. There was no malevolence involved. The task was great, and the commission was slow to get off the ground. I suspect that it spent too much time talking to the department about money rather than getting on with the job. The commission must also share some responsibility.
	The question now is how we ensure that the new arrangements are effected as efficiently as possible. I share some of the concerns about the performance of the commission. Reports have reached me from the health service of a certain inflexibility of approach. I regret that. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I wonder why, for instance, SI 2003/2124 says that the patients' forums "shall have regard to" the advice of the commission. The commission has an important role to play in ensuring and reviewing the performance of each patients' forum, but it is not there to manage the patients' forums. They are not local branches of the commission. It is important that they are seen to be independent. I give notice that I shall return to the matter, if I detect signs that the commission is seeking to have too much influence on the activities of individual patients' forums.
	On the question of local network providers, I do not think that the principle is unreasonable. It was a good decision by the commission to recognise that, given the huge number of people to be appointed, using local providers seemed sensible. However, those local providers must have local knowledge. They have a great responsibility to ensure that the people appointed to patients' forums are up to the job. I worry about those who provide the service but are not based in the locality for which the patients' forum is being appointed. I hope that my noble friend might take that message back to the commission.
	I have two or three issues to raise. The first is that it was always the intention that patients' forums would appoint one of their number to be a non-executive on the board of NHS trusts. Word reaches me that that has been put into abeyance. I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell me the position on that. I always thought it to be a very important provision that patients' forums would have that direct connection with the board of each NHS trust and primary care trust.
	My second question is about foundation trusts. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for one, will not agree with me. We are discussing legislation that would not require a foundation trust to appoint a patients' forum. Yet word reaches me that the commission, none the less, is insisting that those NHS trusts which are going forward as applicants are establishing patients' forums for those trusts. The noble Lord will no doubt move an amendment on Report to require that but at the moment they are not required to do so. I suggest to the commission that, surely, there is room for some flexibility in relation to the first wave of foundation trusts. Surely they should hold off the appointment of those patients' forums until the matter has been decided by Parliament.
	Parliamentary involvement brings me to another issue. In the Bill, the Act and the regulations, there are references to patients' forums, not to patient and public involvement forums. I ask my noble friend: why are these organisations to be called patient and public involvement forums? That may be a minor point, but as my noble friend knows, I have raised it in relation to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill where governing bodies are named as governing bodies. Yet my good friends in many applicant foundation trusts have produced consultation documents which refer to them as member councils.
	Either Parliament is here to determine what happens in the NHS or it is not. If Parliament determines that governing bodies are called governing bodies, it is not for the NHS or the department to suddenly say, "You can use another name". We did not establish patient and public involvement forums; we established patients' forums. My concern is that the commission has ordained that the name should be changed because it considers these local organisations to be branches of the national commission. That is not what the legislation intended. They are not local branches of the commission. The commission has an important role to play in ensuring that patients' forums are given the right advice and information and that they are enabled to do their job properly.
	I get very concerned when the commission takes it upon itself to change wording that is in the legislation and seeks to over-manage what those patients' forums do. I do not hold my noble friend responsible for that at all. We set up the commission as an independent body; it is right that they should be independent. My goodness—the commission has a responsibility, too, to Parliament, to act in the way that Parliament intended and ordained.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for giving your Lordships the chance to hear about the progress of setting up patients' forums and for his interesting speech. With the demolishing of community health councils, several of your Lordships, including myself, were concerned that there would not be an independent voice for patients and the public. Community health councils have closed down or are closing down before, it seems, the forums are set up and in place.
	With the fragmentation and confusion to the public while the many different professional bodies are sorting themselves out, the patients' voice, which was supported by the CHCs, seems to be left in limbo. Because he has been a director of social services, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, the Minister replying, will understand how confused and vulnerable patients or their relatives need support and information.
	I hope that the noble Lord will give us some assurances today that suitable patient support bodies will be set up. CHCs were able to delay the closure of hospitals—in a way, rather like the House of Lords—giving the Government a chance to think again. CHCs could give the Secretary of State for Health a chance to listen to the public and think again. Will there be any body which will be able to do that now? What functions are the patients' forums to have?
	It was of great concern to read this week about the epileptic children in Leicestershire. There seemed to be no mechanism for patients and health workers to get any satisfaction about the deplorable situation which was going on around them. No one seemed to want to listen. The Minister will no doubt say that he cannot comment on an individual case, but there were more than 600 young lives being damaged, having been given unnecessary drugs.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is to be congratulated on bringing up this matter. What is to be the membership and procedure of the patients' forums? Will they really represent patients? What will happen to all the information gathered over the years by CHCs? Is it to go into a bin? I should like to ask the Minister: why will foundation hospitals not need to have a forum? While other health bodies and hospitals will have them, will that not add to the present confusion? Are dentists to have forums?
	I hope that the Minister will be able to take up the challenge and put in place a satisfactory, supportive and independent body which has time to help patients and advise managers on the needs of their communities. The present forums, as stated in the statutory instruments, do not seem satisfactory, as stated by your Lordships tonight. The criticism of CHCs was that they did not have enough teeth: these forums seem to have none.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a former director of the Association of Community Health Councils. However, on this occasion I have not had the benefit of sight of the interesting review and survey carried out by the association. None the less, that will not stop me commenting on the regulations.
	I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his commitment not to divide the House on these regulations because we must get on with establishing patients' forums. If the Prayer were to succeed, the consequence would be even more confusion, even more of a hiatus and even more of a gap than might otherwise be the case. Nevertheless, it is valuable to have an opportunity to discuss and debate some of the rather interesting issues that appear to be in the regulations.
	I speak as someone who is not a lawyer, something of which I am inordinately proud. As a lay person, it seems that there are a number of issues in the regulations that it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify.
	In SI 2123 on membership and procedure, for example, Regulation 2(4)(b) on membership seems to suggest that the commission may decide that all kinds of other bodies might be represented on the patients' forum. That could be very helpful, but it would be interesting to be given some sense of what Ministers have in mind here. It is self-evident that local authorities or parish councils within the area of a PCT are bodies that represent members of the public. Perhaps they might have a representative on the forum. It could even be argued that Members of Parliament represent the people in the area and therefore might be allowed to send a member of their staff to become a member of the patients' forum. That is an interesting concept, but I am not sure whether it is quite what was in mind. Local neighbourhood watch schemes may even seek representation. What exactly does this part of the regulations intend to achieve?
	I turn to Regulation 10(5). The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, drew attention to some of the issues surrounding meetings and proceedings. However, this regulation provides that the only meetings which must be held in public are those dealing with the items set out in paragraph (4). The much-maligned community health councils were subject to access to information provisions and there was a presumption that all meetings would take place in public. Given that such a body is considering the services being provided for local people, it is an important provision. I am not sure what is to be gained by allowing this potential restriction.
	Regulation 8(1) and (2) address the central questions of funding and resources. I would welcome a clear statement from the Minister that Regulation 8(2) would apply even if staff are associated with supporting a patients' forum only on a part-time basis. Do they then come under the direction of the members? What will define the point at which they would stop being under the direction of the members and under the direction of someone else?
	Regulation 2 of Statutory Instrument 2124 covers functions. I suspect that those lawyers drafting these regulations may have raised a number of issues which they did not intend—or perhaps they did intend to do so, in which case the aim may have been to make the job of the new patients' forums almost impossible to complete. Regulation 2(2), for example, states:
	"Where an NHS trust provides services under arrangements made by more than one Primary Care Trust, the Patients' Forums established . . . shall co-operate".
	The word "shall" is powerful. Presumably every PCT in the country receives services from Great Ormond Street hospital or from one of the other national institutions. Does that mean that no comment can be made unless every patients' forum in the country has co-operated? That seems to be the implication here. I do not understand why the word "shall" as opposed to "may" has been used. No doubt there is a good reason and the Minister will share it with us.
	Regulation 3(1)(a) is excellent stuff, giving the PCT patients' forum the most impressive powers of entry and inspection. If I read it correctly, where it states,
	"any body mentioned in paragraph 3",
	that would mean access to any primary care trust, any local health board, any local authority—presumably anywhere in the country—any NHS trust—presumably anywhere in the country—and so forth. That is an incredibly wide power which, while extremely useful, no doubt could lead to all kinds of fishing expeditions being made by patients' forums if they have the staff and the members to do so. That might mitigate against some of things that apparently concerned Ministers about the CHCs.
	A similar point arises in respect of Regulation 5(1) on information. Subject to Regulation 6, which covers not disclosing personal information about individuals, it seems that any of the bodies referred to in Regulation 5(3) must produce for the patients' forum any information,
	"which appears to the Patients' Forum to be necessary".
	Again, I commend that power. It is absolutely wonderful that patients' forums may require such information from any of these bodies; that is, any strategic health authority, any NHS trust, any primary care trust and, indeed, the commission itself. That would be interesting, because it is one of the most open of bodies. No doubt it will be happy to make available all this information. Again, these are wide powers and no doubt the Minister will want to commend and support their use. I look forward to hearing his explanations.
	However, the fundamental issue that must be addressed, and to which no doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will respond, is that there are some real weaknesses in what is actually happening. The point has already been made about the commission's decision to contract out some of the staffing and administrative arrangements. I thought that the real strength behind establishing the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement is that it would enable common standards to be set, along with a common set of procedures and common arrangements across the country. That was a strength and would mark how these new arrangements would be better than those for the CHCs, but that has been thrown away. I would be interested in the Minister's views on that, and whether he thinks it is working well in the light of experience so far.
	I turn to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Both noble Lords are suspicious about the phrase "will have regard" to the points made by the commission. I am rather more sanguine about this because it seems to be precisely the role that the commission should play. Again, however, I would be interested to know the Minister's views about how that will apply and whether it is about achieving common standards and enabling common information from patients' forums in relation to their work to be made available.
	My final point comes back to the question of funding. When the Bill passed through the House it was quite clear that what was being proposed could be a better system than previously existed, but it would always have been naive to assume that it could have been achieved on the same level of funding as CHCs or even on an enhanced level of funding. The messages I am getting from all around the country is that an attempt is being made to do this on the cheap. I will be interested to hear from the Minister, not so much about the costs of winding up and start up but about the real, expected resources that will be available for patients' forums in the future and, again, my noble friend's judgment of whether they will be sufficient to enable the patients' forums to do the job that the House and the public expect them to do.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving the House an opportunity to debate this issue. After listening to the speeches, I have a slight sense of being someone who has blundered into a reunion party without having paid his dues. I shall do my best to earn my entrance fee. I was quite touched by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I might have something of the night about me.
	Before responding to the points raised by noble Lords, perhaps I may start by paying tribute to the staff and members of CHCs for all that they have contributed over the years to protect and promote the interests of patients. None has done so more than my noble friend Lord Harris, who made a typically robust contribution. He will not be surprised to hear that I shall not be able to answer all his detailed questions tonight, but where I do not pick up on points I shall reply to him. I was grateful for his statesmanlike approach in encouraging us to think about the future rather than dwell too much on the past.
	I recognise that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have made great contributions in trying to improve the arrangements we have in place for patients. I am grateful that I have been found personally not guilty and for the fair-minded tone of many of the noble Earl's comments.
	I accept that he and others have reservations about the process by which we have reached the present position. But we have a new structure in place which comprises 570 patient and public involvement forums—we can discuss later whether that is the right title—serviced by 68 local network providers. We are reliably assured by the strategic health authorities that patient advice liaison services now cover 98 per cent of NHS trusts and PCTs. There is a new regional independent complaints advocacy service offering support across the whole of England to those who wish to complain. It may well be that an easier road to reform could have been taken, but we are where we are and it is important that we look to the future as well as thinking about what went on in the past.
	I have listened to the comments made about the commission. We should recognise that a huge effort has been made in the past 10 months by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and others to put the new arrangements in place and that there are some good early signs as well as problems. We have to give these new arrangements a chance to flourish. Certainly having been a change manager in the public sector in a number of areas, I fully recognise that transition is never easy. In the transitions in which I have been involved, I have observed that there is a tendency to don rose-tinted glasses about the past and to be suspicious about the future. I am not making accusations, but there is a tendency somehow to see the past as a little better than it might have been.
	A number of noble Lords referred to the issue of money. I do not have detailed evidence of the cost of the transition. What I can say—I hope that noble Lords will find this reassuring—is that the money spent on patient and public involvement last year was around £23 million and we are expecting to spend a little more than £35 million this year. So a penny-pinching approach is not being adopted in this area. I acknowledge that that does not deal totally with the issue of whether in the past people would have spent the extra money in this particular way, but we are certainly not doing this on a wing and a prayer. We are certainly putting in resources to make it work effectively.
	Noble Lords have raised a number of issues with which I shall attempt to deal. I would like to deal head-on with the idea and the setting up of local network providers. While acknowledging that this was not the Government's original idea, it is possible to see the commission as having been rather creative and innovative. It is also possible to see this as a genuine effort to work with and involve the voluntary and community sectors more effectively. Given my background, I have a lot of sympathy with that approach.
	Our job in the department—I do not want to distance it from the commission—is to ensure that the commission carries out its functions within the scope of the legislation. The local network providers' approach does this, even though it is probably not the approach people would have thought would emerge when this was being discussed at an earlier stage. It is different from the Government's original thought that the commission would employ staff locally, but we have to respect its independence. It has produced an alternative approach of achieving its main goal, and we have to give that a chance to work before we rush to criticise.
	It is worth bearing in mind that in a 10-month period the commission has managed to get in place this series of networks by awarding 140 contracts by 1st September. That is a very considerable achievement. Network providers will undoubtedly work differently from the staff support arrangements that were provided to CHCs. But not all CHC arrangements were universally popular. There were some great success stories but there were some areas where things did not work quite as well, and we must bear that in mind.
	Staff of the local network providers may support more than one forum. That does not mean that the forums will be in any way less supported than CHCs have been; the approach can encourage forums to work with other forums where they share a network adviser, something that people were concerned about in the debate. They can work to promote the sharing of ideas between forums. There will be local network providers which have an overview about groups of forums and the way in which they are working.
	I detected, once or twice, a kind of enthusiasm for a traditional public sector committee structure, and a feeling that something was not quite right in these arrangements. It is fair to say that we do not necessarily want all patients' forums to work like old-style committees, with a rather static secretariat support. We want them to be flexible; we want them to use modern technology to generate and sustain interest.
	We have been rather programmed—rather institutionalised—when it comes to always having a chair, but we think that should be left to local forums. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, does not like me even implying that he might be a bit fuddy-duddy about this, but we want to leave this to local decision-making. From time to time I am accused of being one of the great centralisers, but we are trying to devolve responsibility down to the local level. The local network providers can provide services by making more use of telephone and Internet services and disseminating good practice information. I mention these points to show that there is another approach and another point of view.
	Let me turn to the specific points raised. On one-stop shops, local providers will provide support to PCT forums to carry out this role. There has been no change of heart; the commission is committed to one-stop shops. Rome was not built in a day, we have not got there yet, but there is no backtracking on that issue, as I understand it.
	Why do patients forums have to have regard to commission directions? One criticism made of CHCs was that there was unevenness of standards across the country. That provides for the commission to ensure that standards are adhered to and there is greater consistency across the country—consistent with a fair degree of local devolution. One wants to be able to ensure that most parts of the country receive a consistently good and supportive service.
	My noble friend Lord Hunt became very concerned about whether the commission has changed the name agreed by Parliament. One can argue that there is something rather respectable about patient and public involvement. The commission has used its own title in effect to brand that work. I am not versed in the background to the issue. I do not promise to change things, but I shall reconsider the matter so that I, at least, understand it. I shall return to the issue of how I might communicate with noble Lords after the debate.
	The policy on patients forum members as NEDs has not been changed. We are agreeing a timescale and will amend membership later next year. The regional offices are trying to ensure that local network providers cover adequately the country as a whole, which raised some concern.
	I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on vulnerable people. I cannot comment on the tragedy of epilepsy that she raised, although I can understand her concerns.
	A question was raised about why there was no mention of prisons in the regulations. There is no need for that; from next April, healthcare in prisons will begin to be commissioned by primary care trusts and, as such, will be a service that can be monitored and reviewed by patients forums. There is no bar to entry. Arrangements will have to be agreed with the Prison Service on the way in which prisons are entered, but there is no intention to exclude prisons in any way.
	The primary legislation does not give rights of entry to patients forums in respect of care provided in the private sector, but we recognise that, increasingly, care is provided outside NHS settings. We shall be issuing directions to primary care trusts requiring contracts that they have with the independent sector to cover arrangements for dealing with patients forums.
	Some noble Lords expressed concern about whether PALS have adequate coverage. As I said earlier, we are assured that 98 per cent coverage of PALS is in place.
	Much concern was expressed about whether the Independent Complaints Advocacy Service was answering the phone adequately and properly. Such services are often difficult in the early days. However, our understanding is that, although the service was very busy in the early days, things are working much better now. Demand has stabilised and the phones are being answered reasonably. However, I shall check again on that to reassure noble Lords.
	I do not want to go over future ground. We shall come back to patients forums and foundation trusts in the debates on the Bill, and I have given a commitment to consider again some of the issues on those matters. The debate has been useful, and I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I have not been able to respond to all the points that were made, but I shall write to noble Lords about many of the points I was unable to deal with in detail.
	We have a new structure in place, and it is important that it should be allowed to work effectively to improve patient and public involvement in the NHS. I am sure that the commission will heed the concerns and criticisms voiced by noble Lords. Without in any way wishing to sound as if I were reverting to a traditional centralism, I shall ensure that the commission is aware of the concerns that have been expressed. I will want to seek some reassurances from it on some points that noble Lords have raised.
	Given the work that the House has done in this sphere, I think it fair that noble Lords should know and be confident about how we are moving forward. However, I hope that we can avoid rushing to judgment on how well the new arrangements will work. The commission knows that it will be judged by results, and we have to give it time to demonstrate those results. I hope that we do not dwell too much on the past. I think that we can put that past behind us. We need to give these new arrangements a chance to show their worth and what they can do. With that reassurance, I hope that we can successfully move forward.

Earl Howe: If I may, in the two minutes available to me, I should like to thank the Minister very much for his constructive response. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this extremely useful debate. I agree with the Minister that it is the future that is important. I also agree that transition is not easy. I think, though, that he will have gained a sense from the contributions this evening that, without too much more effort, the transition could have been made a lot easier than it has turned out to be.
	The commission is to be applauded in many ways, not least for taking what I acknowledge is an innovative approach to supporting the patients' forums. The voluntary sector has a great deal to offer the patient and public involvement system, just as it has been an intrinsic part of the CHC system, although its role will now be more as a provider than an impartial contributor. Nevertheless, it is an imaginative idea.
	The commission has, however, to be set up properly. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was absolutely right. Those who support the forums must have local knowledge. While the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, might be accused of being a fuddy-duddy, I had great sympathy with what he said about the committee structure. The fact is that having one person serving a number of patients' forums is a recipe for muddled accountability and potentially for conflict of interests. I think that that has to be guarded against and, if I may respectfully suggest, at one remove to the commission. I hesitate to criticise the commission openly in the House when it has no means of answering back directly, but it does have to pay close attention to the decisions that Parliament took. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was right to highlight that, especially its own relationship with the forums once they begin. The forums are independent entities. They are not to be line managed, nor are they local branches of the commission.
	I am sure that I speak for all of us here in wishing the patients' forums well, and indeed the commission, as they go about their important task. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Patients' Forums (Functions) Regulations 2003

Earl Howe: had given notice of his intention to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 14th August, be annulled (S.I. 2003/2124).
	Motion not moved.

Extradition Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 4 [Person arrested under Part 1 warrant]:

Lord Lyell: My Lords, if Amendment No. 29 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 30 to 32.

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 3, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"(2) A copy of the warrant must be given to the person as soon as practicable after his arrest."

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33, 194, 198, 204 and 208, all of which are in this group.
	In Grand Committee we explained that our amendment was intended to ensure that the arrested individual was always given a copy of the warrant—not the original, obviously, but a copy—either on arrest or as soon as practicable thereafter. For the arrested person the warrant contains vital information including why he or she is being arrested and the grounds on which extradition is sought. We argued that the warrant should be provided automatically to the arrested individual. Arrested persons should not have to ask to see it.
	I therefore welcome the Government's Amendment No. 30 which provides that the arrested person is not required to ask to see the warrant. However, I hope that the Government will go a little further on the matter. We would still prefer that the arrested person should be entitled to be given a copy of the warrant and to keep it.
	The European arrest warrant annexed to the framework decision will contain a great deal of vital information for the arrested person. That is a step in the right direction and further meets the obligation relating to the framework.
	This matter is very much about the rights of the individual. If there are circumstances in which a person's rights are affected, we must ensure that that individual has all the information which he or she can use to defend themselves. The automatic availability of warrants would ensure that the individual was fully aware of why he was arrested and the grounds of his extradition. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 33, 198 and 208 which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	I welcome the government amendments in this group. They properly reflect the points which were made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. Indeed, six of these are identical to amendments we tabled in Committee to leave out,
	"and he asks to be shown the warrant",
	and to replace "request" with "arrest".
	The other two amendments—Amendments Nos. 42 and 43—make sure that in the Part 1 provisional arrest clause there is also an obligation to show the warrant, or a copy of it, to the arrested person as soon as practicable after his arrest. When we originally came to table our amendments for Report we decided to back the reworded version of the subsection which the Liberal Democrats proposed as a more straightforward way of making the change. However, the only difference between the Liberal Democrat amendment and the new government ones here is the word "given" instead of "shown". The one word difference is not something on which we would insist or on which we would make a stand. I am happy to accept the government amendments in this group as a welcome concession.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, on the contrary, I believe that there is a world of difference between "given" in Amendment No. 29 and "shown". "Given" is patently right. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will accept that.
	The whole problem here arises from the use of the word "warrant". We are used to the word "warrant" denoting something that authorises someone to search my house or me, for example. That must be shown before the search takes place. In the case that we are discussing the warrant is a document which is effectively the equivalent of a charge or an indictment, though it is rather more detailed. It tells one what one is charged with, what the nature of the offence is and so on and so forth. After a certain amount of badgering in Grand Committee, the Government admitted that one is invariably given a copy of a charge document or an indictment. The person concerned will want to take it to whoever advises him and say, "Look, this is what I am charged with, or this is why I have been arrested. Does it justify my arrest?" He will want to look at it. Incidentally, that solves the problem of language. He will obviously want to look at it in English, because the questions will be about what an English tribunal will think of the warrant and whether it complies with English law.
	People will want a copy. Once they have a copy, translation facilities can be provided. To be shown it is the recipe for disaster. Let us imagine that someone is shown the document. He is probably fairly flustered. He gets everything wrong and says to his advisers, "I was shown the document and it said such and such". The advisers give him some advice, on which they and he act. Then when the advisers get to see the document, they see that the person has got everything wrong. I cannot conceive of why the Government should object to the person who has been arrested having in his hand a copy of the document that justifies his arrest, tells him for what he has been arrested, and enables him to discuss with his advisers whether he will be extradited, whether a bull point prevents him being extradited, and so on.
	The only consequential problem that I see is if, by inadvertence, bad management or whatever, someone is not given a copy of the warrant. I fully agree with what the Government said in Grand Committee; namely, that that should not lead to automatic discharge. That has been boldly tackled by those on the Conservative Front Bench in Amendment No. 33. I am not sure that I am totally convinced by it, because it states that failure to provide the warrant will not result in automatic discharge. The amendment does not say what that will result in. I assume that it means that the magistrate will have discretion to say, "That was flagrant. I'm going to discharge him", or, "That was an error, but you got one half a day later. You are now in a position to deal with the matter. Don't let's make too much fuss about that and let's get on with the realities".
	I seriously urge the Government to take on board that what needs to be done is to give a copy of the document to the person who has been arrested as soon as reasonably practical. All the rest flows. That gets out of the translation problems and the questions of whether someone was shown a copy, and if he does not have it whether he was shown it for long enough, had time to read it and understood it. If someone has the piece of paper, he knows what he is in court for and can take advice on it. Please could we have a little reality and accept Amendment No. 29?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been quite a sparky little debate. I give great credit to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for sparking off some further thoughts, certainly on our Benches. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for moving the amendment and arguing the case for it very clearly. I am also extremely grateful for the words of support from those on both opposition Benches for the government amendment. We are not far away from playing on the same football pitch on the issue; we are in the same territory.
	We are concerned that a person arrested in connection with an extradition case is aware of the reason for the arrest. That goes to the heart of the point made by the noble Viscount. In many cases, the police will be in possession of the warrant at the time of the arrest and will show it to the person at that point—I shall come to the issue of giving and showing in a moment—but that will not always be the case, of course. One has to be realistic and accept that. The details of those wanted for extradition purposes will be entered on the police national computer, so a police officer could come across such a person by chance.
	That will not happen often, given the small number of cases involved. I suggest that it will not happen with great regularity, but it could happen, say, as a result of a stop-and-search exercise or some sort of traffic stop. We cannot therefore expect every officer to carry a copy of every single outstanding arrest warrant. There will be occasions when a person is arrested by an officer who is not in possession of the warrant and would not be in a position to show it. That is not what we expect to be the case in every single instance.
	As the Bill is currently drafted, there is a requirement in such circumstances for the person to be shown the warrant if he requests it. That is in line with normal domestic procedures that we all understand. In Grand Committee, both opposition parties forcefully made the case that the person should automatically be shown the warrant without waiting for him first to request it. Indeed, that is the broad purpose of their amendments today.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, forcefully suggested that such people should be given on request a copy of the warrant. Effectively, that will happen because clearly the person arrested will want to have legal advice and rightly he should have it. I would argue, and it will be the case, that at that stage his legal representative will want to see and have access to the warrant. There is also the important issue of interpretation and the documentation will need to be in the appropriate language. No doubt we will provide more detail for that in guidance.
	In general, we are happy to go along with the notion which the opposition parties moved in earlier amendments in Committee. The domestic situation is not completely analogous. After all, a domestic warrant is simply an instrument for arrest whereas a Part 1 warrant will contain all the details of the crime for which the extradition is sought. Accordingly, we have brought forward amendments which provide that a person who is not shown the warrant at the time of his arrest must be shown it as soon as practical thereafter. There is therefore no longer a requirement for that person to ask for it first.
	Without being unduly immodest, I believe that the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland are neater and better drafted than those put forward by the Opposition. That is hardly surprising as we have access to expert parliamentary counsel. I therefore hope that I have reassured the noble Viscount on the point which he forcefully argued. I am grateful that welcome has been given to government Amendments Nos. 30, 32, 42, 43, 195, 197, 205 and 207. I hope that noble Lords will feel happy to support them today.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I fully accept that it may not be practical instantly to give the person a copy of the warrant. I suspect that cases in which the arresting officer does not have it may be more frequent than the Minister believes. After all, these are serious crimes and the person's identity may be flashed all over the country. The warrant may be in London and the person may be detected like someone in The Thirty-Nine Steps crossing the Tay Bridge.
	I am not fussed about that, but I am concerned about the moment when it is possible for the constable to show the person a copy of the warrant. It is possible within half an hour to give it to him because, presumably, most police stations have photocopying machines. The difference between showing and giving is considerable. I am not asking for urgency and for disaster to strike if it does not happen, but I say that it is not satisfactory if the person has to wait until a legal adviser comes along. He can ask for it, so why should not the person involved have it if he can see it? An intelligent English speaking person, if he can see it, can follow it, so why should not the poor handicapped person who does not speak English well or who does not have a good memory have a document that he can take to his legal adviser?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I indicated earlier that I had heard what the noble Viscount said and I believe that what he describes will, in effect, be how it works. I believe that the noble Viscount has put his finger on it: it may well be that the person to whom one is showing the document will not be in any better a position if he is given the document. My guess is that, once he has a legal representative and is in possession of a photocopied version of the document, he will be in a rather better position. I can go no further than that this evening.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He gave two examples. In the first, he referred to someone being arrested following the stop and search procedure, but that is not what we are talking about. This is a completely different issue. If a person is arrested on a warrant for extradition, that is a separate matter and that information will have been available prior to the arrest.
	Secondly, the Minister said that he would provide examples of the difference between showing and giving but he did not say why the warrant should not be given to the individual. He did not explain that point. My position is precisely the same as that of the noble Viscount. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to look seriously at this issue.
	Ultimately, it is not simply a case that if someone has legal representation, he should be given a copy or allowed to see the documentation; more importantly, an individual must see the document so that he can then decide what kind of legal representation he wants, and on that basis he will seek legal advice. If he does not have the basic information, other than being shown rather than being given the documentation, that will make the case very complicated.
	Perhaps I may suggest that the Minister takes back this matter rather than trying to resolve the problem at this stage. We can then return on Third Reading to see whether there are alternative means by which an individual may have access to the information. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 3, line 31, leave out "and he asks to be shown the warrant"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Bridgeman: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 3, line 32, after "him" insert "in English, or, if he requests it, in any official language of a category 1 territory"

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 31, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 196, 206, 231 and 240. These amendments refer to the language in which the warrant should be presented to the accused person. I have taken into account the views expressed in Grand Committee and have redrafted the amendments to meet some of the points raised then—in particular, those of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Perhaps even the Minister will look at these amendments with a more sympathetic eye.
	We are all fighting the same corner on this matter. I was heartened by the Minister's opening remarks in response to the amendments on the issue of language in Grand Committee. The amendments were not in my name; they were in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson. The Minister said:
	"this is a proper challenge to seek to balance the interests of justice in bringing to trial people charged with serious crimes and the risks of an infringement of civil liberties as a consequence of that process. That is why I support the spirit of what is being attempted but not the mechanism".—[Official Report, 18/6/03; col. GC 324.]
	We all agree that anyone arrested in this country deserves to be able to understand the reasons for his arrest and what the charge against him is. How, then, do our amendments address this issue? The first amendment is to Clause 4, which concerns the arrest of a person under a Part 1 warrant. We argue that the person must be shown a copy of the warrant,
	"in English, or, if he requests it, in any official language of a category 1 territory".
	The other four amendments, which deal with procedures under Part 2—both arrest and provisional arrest under a Part 2 warrant and the final decision for extradition supplied to the defendant by the judge or the Secretary of State in Clauses 93 and 101 respectively—amend the Bill so that the warrant or information must be provided to the person,
	"in English, or, if he requests it, in a language which he understands".
	Part 1 deals not with domestic warrants, but with warrants issued abroad. The European arrest warrant is a transitional arrangement, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson and others pointed out in Grand Committee. Might it not be more pertinent to look further than our current obligations for translation, as set out under the ECHR? I believe that there are clear grounds for accepting this amendment on the basis of the annex to the framework decision about language. That, if I may be permitted to read it, states:
	"This warrant must be written in, or translated into, one of the official languages of the executing Member State, when that State is known, or any other language accepted by that State".
	The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, pointed out that in regard to warrants issued for the extradition of a person from the United Kingdom, the warrant would probably be in English. However, we are talking about an agreement made between several EU member states. With agreements made between our European partners we constantly have the problem that documents have to be translated into the various official languages of member states. That is why we have proposed Amendment No. 31. Under normal circumstances we would expect the warrant to be shown to the person in English, but if he or she requests otherwise, it could be produced in the language of any category 1 country.
	The phrase "if he requests it" appears in all five amendments and is a direct response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Both have commented that it may be impossible to know what language the defendant understands. He may keep silent and then claim that he does not understand English and so uses that as an excuse to be discharged. Therefore, we have proposed a presumption that primarily the warrant be shown to the person in English. It should be translated into another language—either a category 1 territory official language in the case of Part 1 or any other language in the case of Part 2—if the person requests that. Therefore the person cannot decline to say what language he understands and then evade justice.
	One important reason why I believe that these amendments should be introduced into the Bill relates to the case of reciprocal standards. At Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Hodgson outlined the shocking case of Teresa Daniels and the ordeals that she suffered being charged, being allowed to go free and then being re-arrested without any knowledge of what was going on or what stage the proceedings had reached. That happened because the lawyers and the judge were speaking in Spanish, discussing a warrant in Spanish, without the interpreter translating the relevant facts to her.
	This is an important point of principle. We may have obligations already under ECHR and under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to provide interpreters, but we should not be shy of putting in another provision to assist the defendant to understand his or her case. We know that other countries have been more than a little remiss with their translation services, so it would be constructive and in the spirit of co-operation with our partners in extradition if we were to provide a translation at the request of the defendant. I beg to move.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Viscount has suggested that this amendment answers my objection. It may answer one of my objections but it produces another. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is over-naive about the co-operativeness of people arrested under such warrants. He suggests that they will ask for the warrant to be translated into a language that they understand. If a difficult person is arrested he may say, "Please translate it into Estonian". In south-east Scotland, where I believe the designated authority sits, there may not be many people who could rapidly translate a warrant into Estonian, but on the basis set out by the noble Viscount, such a person could insist that it is translated into any language of a category 1 territory, regardless of the fact that having had the warrant translated into that language he promptly puts the warrant in the bin because he does not understand a word of that language.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Viscount has a more succinct line than those that follow under the word "resist" in my brief, but I had better go through the points.
	It is true to say that these amendments follow on neatly from the amendments that we have just discussed. The issue of language is important. A common concern in extradition cases is that the person arrested may not have a good or an adequate grasp of English and so will not understand the warrant. Clearly, if justice is to be served the person has to be able to comprehend why he or she has been arrested and in connection with what conduct the extradition is sought.
	Amendments Nos. 31, 196 and 206 would require a police officer, on request, to translate the content of the warrant into,
	"a language which he [the person] understands".
	I question whether that is the right way forward. The noble Viscount has powerfully put his finger on the point.
	We have already explained one safeguard in these circumstances, which is that everyone arrested in an extradition case has an entitlement to free legal advice. A lawyer acting in this capacity will be able to understand the warrant, even if his client does not.
	I suggest to your Lordships that requiring the police to translate the contents of the warrant could create practical—we have been given good examples of that—and genuine legal difficulties.
	On a practical level, are we seriously suggesting that any police officer who may be required to handle an extradition case should have the linguistic skills to be able to translate the content of a warrant into any conceivable language? I suggest that that is somewhat unrealistic.
	I have great admiration for the police. They do a brilliant job in difficult circumstances. But in those circumstances in a court somewhere in south Scotland, that might be just one demand too far. On reflection, the noble Viscount may think it better to withdraw the amendment. Even though it is couched in an understandably sympathetic language, as I would expect of him, I encourage him to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, my argument has been neatly undercut by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, assisted by a very comprehensive explanation from the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 3, line 32, leave out "request" and insert "arrest"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 3, line 35, leave out "the person must be taken to be discharged" and insert "and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge must order his discharge"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is another set of amendments in which the Government are responding to concerns that were quite properly and well raised in Grand Committee. In this particular case—although I do not think he is in his place today—my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton voiced concerns. However, we sensed that he had the support of quite a few other noble Lords present on that occasion. I am pleased that we have been able to accommodate his points.
	As your Lordships will know from the amendments which we have just discussed, following arrest in an extradition case the person must be brought swiftly before a court. In most cases, the requirement is that he should be brought before the court as soon as practicable, but in Part 1 provisional arrest cases it must be within 48 hours, together with the full papers, of course.
	These amendments concern what happens if those deadlines are not complied with. As currently drafted, the Bill provides that if the various deadlines applying to a person's first court appearance are not complied with, the person is "taken to be discharged". In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, suggested that this wording was ambiguous and my noble friend Lord Filkin undertook to consider whether it could be improved.
	Your Lordships may be interested to know that during the summer the police also expressed to the Government their concerns about the form of words in the Bill, which they feared could put their officers in the position of having to decide whether a person should be released. So, for a combination of reasons, we have tabled these amendments.
	The amendments remove the references in the Bill to a person being "taken to be discharged" if statutory deadlines are not complied with. Instead, they provide that the person can apply for a discharge if he considers that the deadlines are not complied with. If the judge takes the view that the person is right, he must—I stress "must"—discharge him. I am hopeful that noble Lords will feel that this is a better solution. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to agree to the amendments. I beg to move.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I still think that the amendment is too kind to the criminal—or the person arrested, as we must assume him to be. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, spoke about cases where someone is not brought before a court within 24 hours. But the provision also applies if the person arrested is not shown the warrant as soon as reasonably practicable. That has now become an automatic obligation.
	I see no reason why such an administrative failure should lead to the automatic discharge of someone who is at least suspected and accused by a foreign country of having committed a very serious offence. I confess that I much preferred Amendment No. 33, in the names of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members, which gave the judge in question discretion.
	I think that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who said in Grand Committee that it was all very academic because if the person arrested was automatically discharged, he would get two yards outside the cell door before being re-arrested and the whole process would start again. If that is right, it is not a very charming farce. Surely, the mere failure of a policeman to show the person arrested a warrant as soon as reasonably practicable—because he was very busy—should lead to discretion on whether to discharge rather than an automatic discharge.
	The only alteration that the government amendment would make is that the smart criminal who knows his rights will apply to be discharged and get out, whereas the more ignorant poor fool who does not know that there is an easy way of getting out of gaol without passing "Go" will not take advantage of it. Surely, in those circumstances, it should be up to the judge to ask whether the police have wildly disregarded the detainee's rights, in which case he can go, or whether there has been a mild administrative mess-up that stopped the warrant getting to the arrested person for a couple of hours—when he was asleep, anyhow—and that it can be overlooked.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we thoroughly support the amendments, which bring a great deal more clarity to the current drafting in the Bill—in particular, the phrase "taken to be discharged". Like the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I found the phrase ambiguous and potentially confusing. We welcome any amendments that would make this complex legislation more user-friendly in its language and phraseology.
	However, I have one query that I do not wish to overlook. The same point was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Clause 4(4), if amended as the Government propose in Amendment No. 35, would read:
	"If subsection (2) or (3) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge must order his discharge".
	Can we be certain that, by that stage, the person will have been informed by the police or a legal representative that, if he has not been shown a copy of the warrant as soon as practicable after his arrest, or if he has not been brought before the appropriate judge, it is up to him to apply to the judge before the judge can order his discharge? If we can be sure of that, I have no problem with the amendments. But I seek assurance from the Minister about how the arrested person will know at each stage of the proceedings that it is up to him to apply for discharge.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can confidently give the assurance that the noble Viscount seeks. That is how we expect it to work. I hope that that reassures him.
	In response to the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, there is a balance to be struck in the language of the Bill. We think that we have got it right. We are supported in that by the way in which the police and all quarters of the Committee expressed concern. I take the noble Viscount's point, but we must have confidence in getting the processes absolutely spot on. We will do that because of the serious nature of such cases. I hear what the noble Viscount says, but he must trust us to take into account the points made. In the circumstances, the wording that we have proposed can be lived with, is practical and will work.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
	Clause 5 [Provisional arrest]:

Viscount Bridgeman: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 4, line 3, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendment No. 191. They are both supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	When the Law Society proposed that these amendments should be tabled in Committee, I doubt that it expected that it would unearth such a hornets' nest when it proposed to change the wording in Clauses 5 and 74 from a subjective to a more objective test. If I may paraphrase the subsection, Clause 5 states that,
	"a constable . . . may arrest a person without a warrant if he has reason to believe . . . that a Part 1 warrant has been or will be issued",
	and that it is issued by a legitimate "judicial authority". I hope that that is a fair paraphrasing.
	We are trying to provide greater protection to our citizens. The Law Society of Scotland believes that "reasonable grounds for believing" carries more weight than "reason to believe". This case was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who I am very pleased to see in his place, and by my noble friend Lord Lamont. One may have "reason to believe", but this may not be confirmed by any facts of evidence whereas having "reasonable grounds for believing" implies that one's belief is motivated by information that one finds compelling. I am not a lawyer, but I find that argument convincing.
	A stronger more objective test is obviously preferable when we are talking about a case of "provisional arrest". I have some concern with this clause in the first place: if the constable were to be challenged along the lines of, "What reason did you have to believe that a warrant had been issued?", what would he reply? Would he have to provide concrete evidence or could he say that he suspected that a warrant might have been issued? We do not want anyone to be arrested for the purposes of extradition unfairly, wrongly or because of the mistaken belief of a constable.
	The same argument stands for the decision made by the judge about provisional arrests in Part 2. What sort of criteria should a judge or a constable use to make these decisions on provisional arrest?
	I now turn to the "semantic issue" itself. We feel that "reasonable grounds for believing" is a stronger test than "reason to believe". I shall quote my noble friend, Lord Lamont, since I believe he put the matter most succinctly. He said:
	"'Reason to believe' implies any reason to believe—a slight reason as opposed to a significant reason. 'Reasonable grounds' implies looking at something in the round—at all the evidence available and whether the conclusion is reasonable".—[Official Report, 18/6/03; col. GC 341.]
	However, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was adamant that there was no substantial difference between "reason to believe" and "reasonable grounds for believing". However, he was subsequently challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who suggested that his words could be used as a Pepper v Hart statement with potentially disastrous implications—what one might think of as a field day for the lawyers. This is an area where we must get the drafting right. We cannot simply say that two different formulations of words mean the same thing. We must think how this could be interpreted in the courts at a later date because what we are trying to produce today is workable legislation not a legal minefield.
	I would also like to point out that in trying to justify his point, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, spoke about having "good reason to believe" that a warrant "will shortly be issued". The words "good" and "shortly" are not part of this Bill. They bring implications and suggestions that the more simple straightforward language of the Bill does not contain. We must be careful to look at the words we see before us in the Bill otherwise the danger is the sort of complications and wordy wrangling that we experienced when we debated this point in Committee. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as was so excellently trailed by the noble Viscount, not only does my noble friend agree, so do the rest of us. I am pleased to support the amendments, which were inspired by the Law Society of Scotland.
	Amendment No. 37 would bring the Bill into line with Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Amendment No. 191 is slightly different: it calls for objectivity to be required of the judge when a warrant is prepared for issue. We would support the noble Viscount, if he were to press the amendments.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, it would be a great pity if my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick did not contribute to the debate. His views on the matter have been widely quoted.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, as the noble Lord seems not to be rising to the temptation proffered by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I shall say that this rather esoteric debate about the words trespasses on the grounds considered by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House in the case of Liversidge v Anderson in 1942. Can the Minister tell us whether, if he says that the words are adequate, he assumes that the majority was right in that case or, as is normally thought, that the dissenting judgment of Lord Atkin is to be preferred?

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is interesting that the reason why the Law Society of Scotland is keen on the change of wording is that the Bill would then say what appears in Scots law, whereas the wording used in the Bill is what appears in English law. The society suggests that it would be a sounder basis for the action of a constable or Customs officer.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said:
	"If I have reasonable grounds for believing that a warrant will be issued, then I have reason to believe that that will be the case. If I do not have reasonable grounds, I do not have reason to believe that it will be so".—[Official Report, 18/6/03; col. GC 339.]
	However, one could have "reason to believe" without any grounds. The noble Lord did not take that point.
	The point was beautifully illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton—I do not think that he is going to speak—who said that he might believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, was his cousin because his aunt had told him so but might also, if he went into the matter in some detail, find that there were no grounds for it. I thought that that story was conclusive. Probably, in this case, Scotland has better wording, and the Minister might consider making a small change.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is with some discomfort—no, pleasure—that I rise to answer. I should telegraph early on that, on this occasion, I shall raise the white flag. I thought that that would make one or two people smile.
	We are, of course, ever grateful to noble Lords for expressing their wisdom on such semantic issues. In Committee, I tried to put up as robust a defence as possible of my position. I thought that I had not made too bad a stab at it, but we are prepared to give the matter some further thought.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, put his finger on it: in this Bill—as with all legislation, actually—the Government's desire is to have simple and straightforward language. The noble Viscount gave us credit for that. We have had an esoteric discussion of the issue. Cases from as far back as 1942 were quoted, and Scots law was invoked. What can I do to resist such an onslaught?
	I am happy to give the commitment that we shall take away the amendment to determine what we can do to accommodate the wishes of the Grand Committee, in the first instance, and the wishes expressed fairly and properly on Report. At Third Reading, we shall bring forward a government amendment to incorporate the term "reasonable grounds for believing" in all the appropriate places. With that, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did I hear the skirl of the pipes?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is Report stage. I cannot possibly respond to that.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I feel that it is not a white flag but an honourable armistice. We shall look forward to receiving the redrafted clauses at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Bridgeman: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 4, line 4, leave out "or will be"

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 38, I welcome government Amendment No. 45 grouped with mine. We return to the matter of the provisional arrest, which has caused considerable outrage among outside organisations, as well as among Members of this House and another place. Clauses 5 and 74 deal with provisional arrest.
	We accept that there is some merit in having a means of provisional arrest in cases where an arrest warrant has been issued but has not found its way into the hands of the British authorities. That could be vital in catching a notorious terrorist whom we suddenly recognise at Heathrow airport. In such circumstances, we would want our constables to be able to arrest the offender and hold him in custody for 48 hours while we secure his arrest warrant from the requesting countries.
	That example is what we consider to be the legitimate use of a provisional warrant, although with the caveat that we are still uneasy about the "reason to believe" issue as we discussed earlier—but let that pass. However, there is what I believe to be a potential danger in the drafting of Clause 5, but it is a danger that does not appear in Clause 74. In Clause 74, the justice of the peace must be satisfied in writing and have evidence in front of him that would justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the accused. In Clause 5, a constable with reason to believe that a warrant has been or will be issued can make an arrest and hold a person for 48 hours.
	We have no further information about how the constable should come to this decision. Could he merely say, "I thought it might be possible that a warrant might be issued"? How can he make such a hypothetical judgment? On what should his belief be based? If he has had communication with police forces in the category 1 territory and they are chasing a notorious criminal, it should not take long for an arrest warrant to be processed. The foreign authorities can then inform the constable and he can make the arrest knowing that a warrant has been issued but is not yet in his possession. However, the provision before us is open to misuse.
	In speaking to their Amendment No. 45, grouped with mine, I hope that the Government have tabled a foolproof amendment which may address that point. I await their explanation on how such an abuse can be avoided. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever, I am grateful for the noble Viscount for having tabled his amendment. What we are concerned with here is the provision in Part 1 of the Bill which allows the police to arrest a person on the basis that they believe that a warrant has been issued or will be issued. I acknowledge that, at first sight, the drafting of the clause might seem a trifle strange; namely, allowing officers to arrest a person purely if they have reason to believe that a warrant will be issued and not just if they believe that a warrant has been issued.
	The opposition amendment seeks to remove the reference to a warrant that will be issued. What I should like to do is set out why we believe those words are necessary, but then go on to explain the solution we have determined in order to meet some of the concerns that, rightly, were expressed in Grand Committee.
	The reason why we think the power to arrest on the basis of a belief that a warrant will be issued is needed can be illustrated by the simple example which we used in Grand Committee. Let us imagine that a person commits a bank robbery in France and jumps on board a hovercraft in Calais just before the French police can catch up with and apprehend him. In such circumstances it would not be unreasonable to expect the French police to telephone their counterparts in Dover and ask for the person to be detained on arrival.
	Doubtless the French police would confirm that they would be going to a magistrate to seek a European arrest warrant, but at the moment that the person arrives in the United Kingdom, the Kent police would have every reason to believe that a European arrest warrant would be issued, but not that it had been issued. The question noble Lords have to ask is whether they believe that, under such circumstances, the person should be arrested. In simple and straightforward terms, and in particular in terms of law enforcement, the Government believe that they should be arrested.
	The alternative is to let the person go, even though by the time confirmation arrives that the warrant has been issued, both the person and the proceeds of the crime might have disappeared. That would be the consequence and effect of accepting the Opposition amendment.
	We accept that such cases are likely to be rare, but that does not meet the point that we can simply ignore the need to cater for them. Further, perhaps it is worth reminding noble Lords that this does not apply only to those on their way to the UK by plane, ferry or Channel Tunnel train. We must never forget that the United Kingdom has a land border and that this scenario could well occur in the case of a person crossing from the Republic of Ireland. As I am sure your Lordships know, the window of opportunity to arrest serious criminals and terrorists in particular can be very limited and those chances need to be taken. It would be a tragedy if United Kingdom legislation on extradition closed off our ability to react quickly to deal with that kind of threat.
	When we discussed this matter in Grand Committee, there was some recognition among those noble Lords present that the situation which I have just outlined, although rare, could arise and that we need to be able to prevent the person from getting away. However, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, highlighted what he saw as a particular problem with the "or will be" formulation. I cannot do better than to quote what the noble Lord said:
	"Is there anything in Clauses 5 and 6 to prevent the following scenario from happening? The French authorities ring up Inspector Knacker of the Yard and say, 'Will you arrest this man? We promise that we will get you the papers within 48 hours'. The inspector arrests the man, the French authorities fail to get the papers there within 48 hours and the man has to be discharged. However, just before he is discharged, the French ring up Inspector Knacker and say, 'Look, I'm sorry we haven't made it in time, but we absolutely promise you that we will get it to you in another 48 hours, so please arrest this man again, as soon as he is discharged'. Is there anything in the Bill to prevent that from happening?".—[Official Report, 18/6/03; col. 349.]
	The answer is that there was nothing explicit on the face of the Bill, although we doubt that the police would have gone along with such an obvious abuse.
	However, we have decided that we ought to make it absolutely clear that a person can be provisionally arrested only once, and that is the purpose of the government amendment. It provides that if a person is provisionally arrested pending receipt of the papers and then released, he cannot be provisionally arrested again. He can be re-arrested only if the full papers, including the warrant, have been received. I hope that noble Lords will welcome that as an extra and important safeguard.
	For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot advise noble Lords to accept the Opposition amendment. It would be wrong to allow criminals to slip through our fingers, even in those rare cases. However, we have introduced to the Bill an extra protection to ensure that there can be no abuse of the power to arrest in cases where no warrant has yet been issued. I invite noble Lords to agree to the government amendment and I hope that, in the light of the careful explanation I have given, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for that explanation. I am particularly reassured by the introduction of new subsection (8), which addresses the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 4, line 6, leave out from first "authority" to end.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
	Clause 6 [Person arrested under section 5]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 45:
	Page 4, line 33, at end insert—
	"(4A) The Part 1 warrant or a copy of it must be shown to the person as soon as practicable after his arrest." Page 4, line 34, after "(2)" insert "or (4A)"
	Page 4, line 34, leave out "the person must be taken to be discharged" and insert "and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge must order his discharge"
	Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
	"(7) Subsection (8) applies if—
	(a) a person is arrested under section 5 on the basis of a belief that a Part 1 warrant has been or will be issued in respect of him;
	(b) the person is discharged under subsection (5).
	(8) The person must not be arrested again under section 5 on the basis of a belief relating to the same Part 1 warrant."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
	Clause 7 [Identity of person arrested]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 47:
	Page 5, line 9, leave out "on a balance of probabilities" and insert "beyond reasonable doubt"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move Amendment No. 47. After the tour de force of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, who managed to obtain a government concession, I hope for more presents from the Government.
	In moving Amendment No. 47, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 219 and 220, all of which are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The amendments address the issue of the standard of proof to be adopted when establishing the identity of a person who has been arrested.
	We are not content at present with the drafting of Clause 7, which covers the identity of the person arrested, and its consequential Part 2 clause, Clause 79. Both clauses deal with the identification of the person arrested, which is the first thing that has to be established when the defendant comes before the judge at the initial hearing.
	When we discussed this point in Committee, there was concern on all sides that the Bill as drafted was not satisfactory. It was obvious that if we were to send the wrong person back for prosecution, for trial, it would be a miscarriage of justice.
	As the Minister helpfully pointed out in Committee, there has been some movement in the drafting from the time the Bill was first introduced into another place. Originally there was no indication of what test or standard of proof should be used when the judge made the decision about whether the person before him was the person named in the warrant.
	I and others referred to the high-profile case of Mr Derek Bond, who found himself in the position of being arrested in South Africa while on holiday—this is an example simply of the problem of identity; we are not intimating that there will be this kind of extradition case—when he was not the person who should have been the subject of the extradition request from America. The case raised concerns both in this House and among the public.
	After some debate in another place, the Government decided to specify the standard of proof. However, they selected the civil burden of proof—the balance of probabilities—rather than the criminal test of beyond reasonable doubt, which we prefer. We accept that it was right for the Government to specify the standard of proof, but we believe that they have chosen the wrong one.
	At the initial hearing the judge is given no prima facie evidence about the offence with which the defendant is charged. All that takes place is a kind of identification—we are not convinced that it is sufficient—of the person, a discussion of the remand, the rights of the person to legal aid and the issue surrounding the consent to extradition. In other words, an administrative and procedural arrangement goes forward once the judge has decided that the Mr Smith before him is the same Mr Smith as named on the arrest warrant, and the extradition proceeds without further ado to the hearing.
	Our amendment seeks simply to change the phrase "on the balance of probabilities" to "beyond reasonable doubt". We seek to insert the criminal test, not the civil test. This would provide the greater degree of certainty required and give greater protection to the defendant from being incorrectly extradited.
	I note that the Government have tabled a clutch of amendments on the burden of proof on other matters to do with retrial and they have made helpful clarifications in rewriting the retrial clauses, to which we will come later. I have asked for them to be degrouped because they address a different problem. But that still leaves the same old problem in this clause. Whatever the Government have done with other parts of the Bill in regard to the burden of proof, they have specifically chosen not to change the burden of proof on identification from the balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. I beg to move.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, it is important to distinguish precisely what one is dealing with here. I think the noble Baroness trespassed against this at one stage. This part of the Bill deals only with whether the person up in front of the magistrate is the person named in the warrant, not whether he has anything to do with the person who committed the crime and has that name.
	The noble Baroness referred to Mr Bond. He was the person named in the warrant, as I understand it, but he should not have been named in the warrant because they got Mr Derek Bond of 45 Railway Cuttings, or wherever he came from, instead of Mr James Bond, 007, of somewhere else. The only question here is, "Are you the person named in the warrant?". To ask for that to be proved in front of the magistrate beyond reasonable doubt is asking too much. I think that the burden should be on the prosecution to show that he more probably is.
	Is anything being done to deal with the example I raised in Grand Committee where the person is named in the warrant but is patently not the person who committed the crime? I gave the example of a person named in a warrant who had been sitting on the Woolsack in your Lordships' House at the very moment the crime was committed. Can the Government do anything to deal with the case of somebody who, although accurately named in the warrant, is patently not the person who ought to be extradited because he is patently not the person who committed the crime in question although he may have the same name and even the same address. He may be the father of the criminal, if he comes from one of those tiresome families whose members give their children the same Christian names they bear themselves.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, says the only issue we are concerned with is whether the person is the person named in the warrant, as if it is a matter of little concern. It seems to me absolutely vital.
	As I understand the way in which the system works, a category one country issues a warrant for the arrest of a person in this country who, it claims, has committed an offence in that country. He is then arrested, which is stage two, and brought before the magistrate. It seems that about the only power the magistrate has is to confirm that he is the person named in the warrant. If the magistrate decides that is the case, he can remand the person in custody for that purpose. The person is then referred to another hearing, which has no power to go into dual criminality; it has no power regarding whether there is a prima facie case, and no control of the Secretary of State over the decision to extradite. Therefore it seems that one of the most important steps is the confirmation by the judge to whom the person arrested is taken that he is the person named in the warrant.
	Let us take the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. The noble Lord appears in the court as the person arrested and the judge has to decide whether he is the person named in the warrant. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, claims he is not, knows nothing about the matter and has nothing to do with this. It must be someone who has the good fortune to look like the noble Lord, who has been mistaken for him. Is it really adequate for the judge to say, "I think on the balance of probabilities it is Lord Bassam, and I think therefore that it is the Lord Bassam who is mentioned in the warrant"?
	All of us have our double. If I may do so in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, I remind the House that when I first entered Parliament, when I looked rather younger than I do now, he and I were often mistaken for each other. If I appeared before the magistrate with a warrant that claimed that I had committed an offence while in France, and if I had never been near the place and had been mistaken for the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, would it be adequate that the court should decide the issue only on the balance of probabilities, or should the judge at least be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt? I am sure that neither myself nor the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, nor the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, would want to be returned to the European country merely on the basis that a magistrate said that on the balance of probabilities he felt that he had the right person before him.
	Since the adjournment, the Minister has been very generous in conceding amendments from the Opposition and accepting that matters needed to be reconsidered. I hope that he recognises the serious intent behind the amendment and will be prepared to consider again the burden of proof.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 have the support of these Benches. During the Grand Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Goodhart made a strong case for avoiding the use of the words, "beyond reasonable doubt". Those words are somewhat out of date. They are no longer used in giving direction to juries in criminal trials, where the judge is now required to say, "You must be sure".
	In the absence of subsection (3), I am given to understand that a court would normally apply the criminal standard of proof or something very close to it. We do not believe that the balance of probability is appropriate in this clause.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister looks on the amendments in spirit, with favour. It is said that the only issue is identity, but I cannot think of a more important matter than identity. Take the case of my noble friend Lord Bassam's twin, who lived his life in America and who changed his name from something to Lord, in the American fashion. If he or his twin were up in the box, I could not think of anything more important than that it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. We might use the wording, "unless the court is sure", or the Government might take the amendment away and insert suitable words.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I must confess that, listening to the debate, I have been intrigued by how one would weigh the balance of probabilities. After all, a probability is a fraction of an actuality. How does one put probabilities in the scales and weigh them? It is a phrase that should be completely rejected in law, which is why I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I answer the amendments with a smile. My mother would be extraordinarily amused at the way in which noble Lords have referred to the Bassam name in the course of the debate—and not least with the notion that I might have a twin somewhere in the United States of America.
	We are happy to respond to the amendments, and to the important issue that they get to the root of. They relate to the specific issue of the standard of proof relating to the person's identity at the initial hearing. When shortly we reach the group of amendments with Amendment No. 69, we shall have a more generalised discussion on the issue of the burden and standard of proof. I will try not to stray too much into that more general territory in my remarks on this group of amendments.
	As I am sure those who have been studying the Bill will know, the first thing that happens after a person has been arrested is that he is brought before a United Kingdom district judge for an initial hearing which takes place very shortly after arrest. It has been said that the magistrates' only power is effectively to determine whether the person in front of them is who he says he is. Although that is an extraordinarily important task, the district judge also has other tasks. He must inform the person of the contents of the warrant; give him information about the possibility of, and the consequences of, consenting to extradition; fix a date for the main extradition hearing; and decide whether to grant the person bail or remand him in custody. All of those tasks have important consequences and great import for the person affected.
	However, before the judge does any of that, he must take a view on the person's identity. He must decide whether the person before him is the person whose extradition has been sought. At that stage the judge is not considering whether the extradition should take place, still less the issue of whether the person is guilty of the crime in question. He is simply reaching a view as to whether the person whose extradition has been sought and the person before him are one and the same. If the judge concludes that the person before him is not the right person, the person must be released automatically and without any further ado. There are no further proceedings or appeals. It is quite simply the end of the matter. I ask your Lordships to bear that in mind as you consider this issue.
	The Bill, as it was originally introduced, did not specify the standard of proof that the judge should apply when considering the person's identity. During Committee stage in another place it was suggested that that was unduly ambiguous and that the Bill should stipulate the standard of proof to be applied. The Government accepted that that was a sensible suggestion and accordingly brought forward an amendment, which was accepted during Report stage, for exactly that purpose. The amendment made in another place imposed the balance of probabilities test. I think that I should explain why that was chosen and why I cannot suggest to your Lordships that you should accept these amendments from the Opposition which would instead substitute the criminal "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard.
	Perhaps I could cite a real and, I think we would all agree tragic, example to illustrate the potential pitfalls if we were to make the change suggested by the amendments. I am sure that your Lordships are all too painfully aware of the awful case of Detective Constable Stephen Oake, who was murdered in a flat in Manchester in January 2003. Given the circumstances of the case, there was not too much doubt about who was thought to be responsible for that appalling crime. The person concerned was duly arrested and brought to court. He was charged under the name of Kamel Bourgass. The Times of 18th January 2003 reported:
	"However, the court was told yesterday that police still do not know if this is his true identity. 'Inquiries are going on to determine whether this is his name or not', said Susan Hemming for the prosecution".
	It also became apparent that the prosecuting authorities did not even know what nationality he was.
	Dangerous criminals of that kind are exactly the kind of people who feature in extradition cases. Those are the very people who very deliberately have no identity papers or, equally possible, possess three or more different passports, all in different names. In such circumstances the district judge may very well not be able to have certainty, beyond all reasonable doubt, as to the person's identity. Do we really want dangerous criminals, potentially terrorists, to be able to escape extradition and justice just because they are so adept at disguising their identity? It is certainly not what the Government want, and I suspect that on reflection it is not what your Lordships want.
	It is certainly not what Nick Hawkins, the leading Opposition spokesman on the Bill in another place, wants. He accepted, as we do, that there is a difficult balancing act to be struck. He concluded:
	"I accept the choice that the Government made for the reasons set out by the Minister today".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/03; col. 173.]
	Would it really be justice if a suspected terrorist or other serious criminal was able to walk free just because he had two different passports and the judge could not have absolute certainty—because that is what is being suggested—about his identity?
	I am confident that in genuine cases of mistaken identity the person will be able to satisfy the judge that he is the wrong person even on a balance of probabilities test. I really do not believe that we should be tipping the balance so far in favour of the identity fraudsters as would be the effect of these amendments. I do not think that that is what Members of your Lordships' House want.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, the Minister commented on the balance of probabilities. I hope that he will forgive me if I was out of the Chamber when he mentioned the relevant case, but will he comment on the South African case where the United States authorities sought the extradition of a British citizen who was the victim of a case of mistaken identity? The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, shakes his head as though that is an inappropriate question. However, he has just advanced the case that these matters are easily resolved. The man in question suffered terribly from being mistakenly identified.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I greatly respect the noble Lord's sincerity in advancing an alternative case, as it were. However, he is asking me to make a judgment. I am not prepared to make that judgment. It would be wrong of me to do so. It is not right for me to comment on that particular case.
	I referred to a case which I believe supports the principles behind the Government's legislation. It is a serious matter which needs to be taken into consideration. I invite the noble Lord and other Members of your Lordships' House to reflect very carefully on that before they seek to press these amendments. I hope that, having heard the serious import of what I said, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, indulged in much rhetoric in trying to portray those who support the amendments as "do badders" who are keen to allow the worst terrorists to flee. He knows that that is not the case. I shall not indulge in the same kind of rhetoric. We are trying to catch the kind of circumstance that was recounted very carefully by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in Grand Committee, and which we tried to hint at in the amendment. There are occasions when someone is patently innocent and should not be subject to extradition proceedings. I confess freely that we have not found a way of addressing what we consider to be the vital point that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, raised. I shall continue to address that point.
	As noble Lords around the House said tonight, none of us would want an innocent person to be subject to these proceedings. None of us would want to sign up to legislation that would allow to go free a person who is accused of killing a member of our forces or our police or who is accused of an act of terrorism or a serious criminal act. However, we must serve the whole public. I shall consider how we can return to the matter at a later stage. I undertake to talk to the noble Viscount between now and Third Reading to see whether we can find an amendment which properly serves our joint objective. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
	Clause 8 [Remand etc.]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Page 5, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) ensure that the person has had the opportunity to receive independent legal advice about the implications of giving or withholding consent to extradition;"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 50, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 201 and 211 with which it is grouped.
	The point at issue here is the provision of legal aid at the initial stage of proceedings and in connection with the giving or withholding of consent to extradition. When we debated the matter in Committee we thought again about how our amendments were phrased. We listened to the points made in Committee and studied Hansard carefully. Many noble Lords drew to our attention the drafting error in our amendments. We heeded their advice and changed them.
	It is clear that we all agree that we must ensure that no one gives their consent to extradition unless they have had at least the opportunity to receive legal advice. The Government have already shown us their commitment to that principle through the amendments to Clauses 44 and 127. They put significant safeguards into the clauses on consent, which we certainly welcomed.
	Our amendments are on the same theme, but are designed to strengthen the Government's commitment to the provision of independent legal advice throughout the Bill. Clause 8 lays an obligation on the judge to proceed under it by fixing a date for the extradition hearing, informing the person of the contents of the warrant, giving the person the required information about consent, and remanding the person in custody or on bail.
	Initially, we intended to amend the clause by removing the duty on the judge to give the person the required information about consent, and by placing instead a positive obligation on the judge to ensure that the person had received independent advice about consent issues. We felt that that approach was flawed, so our new amendment maintains that independent legal advice should be provided to the defendant at the initial hearing. We have already explained that that is advisable. At the moment, the judge must tell the defendant that he can consent to extradition or not, how the procedure will work if he does consent, and that consent is irrevocable. In Clause 44, we see that the person can give his consent only if he has had access to legal advice, and is either legally represented at the time of giving consent or has refused legal aid having been given the opportunity of it.
	We are concerned about the timing. At what stage will the lawyers have access to the defendant in order to run through the issues involved in giving consent? We want to make sure that the person has had time to talk matters through and reflect on which course is appropriate to the situation, without in any way opening the gate to people who want simply to extend the process for their own purposes rather than proper judicial reasons.
	Under Clause 44, the person who has been arrested may have had legal aid for only a matter of hours before he is required to make his decision. We want the Bill to make sure that such a short time frame is not the case. By introducing a requirement for the defendant to have access to legal aid at the stage that Clause 8 describes, we would try to provide certainty that he had time to consider the very serious decision before him.
	I make it clear that all the amendments are strictly probing. We are trying to get a picture on record of how the provisions will work. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever I am extraordinarily grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for having tabled the amendments and explained their purpose. She always gets her explanations spot on.
	The amendments relate to the important issues of consent to extradition and, more specifically, of the legal advice available to a person in such circumstances. It may be worth recording that somewhere between a quarter and a third of those who are the subject of extradition proceedings in this country consent to extradition, so it is not an insignificant issue. It is also very significant for the individual concerned. Deciding whether to consent to the extradition request or to go back voluntarily is a very important decision.
	That makes it absolutely vital that those concerned understand the full implications of granting that consent. For that reason, the judge is required at the initial hearing to explain to the fugitive about the possibility of giving consent and also about the implications and consequences of so doing. In particular, the judge must set out the consent procedure and make sure that the person is aware of the very important fact that once consent has been given it cannot be revoked.
	The amendments would impose an additional requirement on the district judge at that initial hearing. He would also be required to ensure that the person has had the opportunity to receive legal advice about the implications of consenting to his extradition.
	I am sure that many of your Lordships will regard this as a sensible proposition, as do I. I do not disagree with the underlying sentiment behind the amendments, but I want gently to suggest that they are superfluous. I remind noble Lords, first, that anyone who is the subject of extradition proceedings is entitled to legal aid. Every person who is arrested in an extradition case has the same entitlement as those arrested in purely domestic cases. That entitlement is to independent legal advice.
	The duty solicitor scheme is designed precisely to ensure that this advice is available before the first court appearance. In the extradition context, that means that the legal aid is available before the fugitive has any opportunity to consent to extradition. So the advice is there before he is put in the position of considering consent.
	As your Lordships will see from the draft code of practice on police powers, which we put out for consultation, the first duty of the custody officer following a person's arrest in an extradition case is to ensure that he is informed at the first instance of his right to free, independent legal advice. So right at the outset it is the duty of that custody officer to make that crystal clear.
	I want to take this opportunity to put on the record one other point which arose in Grand Committee. My noble friend Lady Scotland has written to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about it. The Government are engaged on a consultation exercise about possible changes to the duty solicitor scheme. However, extradition cases are of such a seriousness that they would not be affected by any such changes. We wanted that to be widely known and understood. In other words, the duty solicitor scheme will continue to be available to all those arrested in connection with extradition.
	However, my reason for suggesting that these amendments are unnecessary goes beyond that. If noble Lords care to take a careful look at Clause 44 and the corresponding Part 2 provisions in Clause 127, they will see that they make clear that the district judge cannot accept a person's consent to extradition unless that person is legally represented or has had the opportunity to have legal advice. In other words—and I have chosen these words very carefully—it will never be possible for a person to consent to his extradition unless he has had the opportunity to take legal advice. That is what the Bill already provides for and, accordingly, I do not believe that these amendments are appropriate or necessary. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will feel not only reassured but confident in withdrawing her amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He has put the Government's arguments on the record more clearly than in Grand Committee. I certainly accept his assurances on those matters.
	He was right to refer to legal aid. I asked questions in Grand Committee because I was concerned about the continuation of legal aid being available for serious cases. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for writing to me to confirm that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Hereford Markets Bill [HL]

Returned from the Commons agreed to.
	House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock. Correction In col. 1549 on Tuesday 21st October, the first two sentences of the Lord Livsey of Talgarth on Amendment No. 4 to the Hunting Bill should read, "The passing of Amendment No. 2 incorporates specifically the principles of registration and exemption. The new clause contained in Amendment No. 4 clarifies and defines registration."